CLOUD v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY et al, No. 1:2012cv00788 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4/21/2012. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
---------- ----------- FILED MAY 1 6 2012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Soreta Waldeck Von Bulow Cloud, Plaintiff, v. United States Attorney Rudolph Contreras, Chief, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia 12 G788 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of a complaint upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues the former Chief of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, now a judge of this Court, because she allegedly was the victim of identity theft. She seeks $27 million in damages and a "Permanent Injunction." Compl. at 4 (page numbers supplied). The complaint is not a model of clarity and is purportedly brought under 28 U.S.C. §1345 ("United States as plaintiff') and§ 1348 ("Banking association as party"). Compl. ~ 3. Suffice it to say, neither of those jurisdictional provisions is applicable. Plaintiff has attached a decision dated October 27, 2011, from the Department of Veterans Affairs denying her administrative tort claim "for personal injury in the amount of [$27 million] as a result of the alleged negligence of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs." The denial was based in part on it "appear[ing] that VA had [no] involvement in the matters ... 3 form[ing] the basis for [plaintiffs] claim." Plaintiff was advised of her right to file a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80. In the instant complaint, plaintiff states that "[t]he FTCA ruling has no bearing on this case as I am not a Veteran, nor do I work for your government." Compl. at 4. Furthermore, plaintiff states that the alleged "acts committed were intentional and premeditated as the identity theft began prior to my presence in the United States." !d. As much as can be discerned from the complaint's allegations, plaintiff is not seeking "money damages ... for [injuries] caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of a Government employee, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1 ), and therefore has not stated a cognizable claim against the real party in interest, the United States. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. ~iA~~ United States District Judge Date: April _d__/if2011 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
