Opinion
Civil Action No. 13-1038
04-26-2013
CATHY L. TOOLE, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint.
Notwithstanding the long list of defendants to this action, see Compl. (caption), the gravamen of the plaintiff's complaint arises from the action, or inaction, of federal judges to whom her cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi were assigned. Plaintiff alleges that these judges have deprived her of equal and impartial justice under the law. See generally id. at 1-4 (page numbers designated by the plaintiff). She demands $6 million as compensation "for all the mental anguish that all the federal judges . . . employed in the state of Mississippi has put [her] through." Id. at 4-5.
The plaintiff fails to state claims against President Barack Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts, who allegedly failed to respond to the plaintiff's letters. See Compl. at 5-7. Any claim pertaining to veterans benefits, see id. at 7-14, is a matter over which this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Frison v.
The plaintiff's "claims against the . . . federal judges are barred on judicial immunity grounds." Caldwell v. Kagan, 455 F. App'x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citing Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) and Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See, e.g., Tsitrin v. Lettow, 888 F. Supp. 2d 88, 91 (D.D.C. 2012). An Order is issued separately.
___________
United Sates District Judge
Principi, No.03-5095, 2003 WL 22097797, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 28, 2003) (per curiam) ("The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction . . . because underlying the claim is an allegation that the VA unjustifiably denied a veteran's benefit"); Higgins v. Kelly, 824 F.2d 690, 691 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of complaint against Veterans Administration rating board and supervisor arising from denial of veterans benefits); Kumnick v. United States, No. 8:05-cv-01511, 2007 WL 4614771, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2007) ("The plain language of 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) precludes this court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim that Defendant failed to properly and timely verify Plaintiff's eligibility for VA benefits.").