United States District Court, District of Columbia
YUSUF O. BUSH, Plaintiff,
U.S. DISTRICT COURT CLERKS OFFICE, Defendant.
matter is before the Court on its initial review of
plaintiffs pro se complaint and application for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will
grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss
the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
and 1915A(b)(1), mandating dismissal of a complaint which
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
is a federal inmate currently designated to the U.S.
Penitentiary located in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. He initially
sued the Clerk of this Court and has since filed a motion to
amend the complaint caption, ECF No. 5, requesting to change
the named defendant to "United States," ECF No. 5,
which would be of no substantive consequence. While the
complaint is far from a model in clarity, it appears that
plaintiff is aggrieved regarding a habeas brief, see
28 U.S.C. § 2254, allegedly mailed to this Court in late
November 2018. See ECF No. 1-1 at 1-2. While it
appears that the mailroom did receive a mailing from
plaintiff on December 3, 2018, see ECF No. 1-2, the
ostensible filing was not docketed. This is likely because
there were one or more deficiencies with the proposed filing,
which would have caused the filing to be returned to
plaintiff. Plaintiff requests "injunctive relief,"
ECF No. 1 at 2, and asks the Court to docket the brief,
noting the date of receipt, ECF No. 1-1 at 8, however, he
does not provide a copy of the proposed pleading, and the
Court does not generally retain copies of returned mailings.
Court "shall dismiss" an action in which a
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis "at
any time if the court determines that... (B) the action ...
(ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A court's
sua sponte consideration of dismissal the in
forma pauperis statutes is akin to evaluation of a
motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require of a
complaint is that it contain" 'a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair
notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Although
"detailed factual allegations" are not necessary,
to provide the "grounds" of "entitle[ment] to
relief a plaintiff must furnish "more than labels and
conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action." Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555-56. To sufficiently state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, "a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A complaint is plausible
on its face "when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
affording plaintiff "the benefit of all inferences that
can be derived from the facts alleged," Kowal v. MCI
Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994),
the complaint fails to adequately state a civilly actionable
claim or the grounds upon which it rests. To the extent that
plaintiff attempts to bring a First Amendment claim relating
to lack of access to the courts,  see ECF No. 1-1 at
4-5, he has also failed. "No  injury exists if a
plaintiff can still meaningfully press his underlying claims
because the plaintiff is not being 'presently den[ied] an
opportunity' to meaningfully litigate, even in 'the
short term.'" Broudy, 460 F.3d 106, 121
(D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Christopher v. Harbury,
536 U.S. 403, 413 (2002)). Plaintiff has subsequently filed a
28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action which is currently
pending in this Court. See Bush v. Ebbert, No.
19-cv-01870 (KBJ) (D.D.C. filed Jun. 21, 2019). Therefore, he
has not been denied an opportunity to meaningfully litigate.
has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Additionally, plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts
to support a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, as he has
failed to state a federal question or to establish diversity
jurisdiction. The complaint is therefore subject to
dismissal. Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction and
motion to amend will be denied as moot. A separate order
accompanies this memorandum opinion.
 Plaintiff seeks only injunctive
relief. ECF No. 1 at 2. "Historically, damages have been
regarded as the ordinary remedy for an invasion of personal
interests in liberty." Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed.
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 394-95 (1999). Here, a
cause of action would be supplied by Bivens, and such actions
are for damages and cannot be viewed as actions against the
government. Simpkins v. District of Columbia
Government,108 F.3d ...