UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MELVIN RICHARD ROBINSON III, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 20-cv-2965 (GMH) AARON PILGRAM, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This case boils down to whether the Court should fashion a remedy for alleged constitutional violations where Congress has failed to enact one and the application of such a remedy could have national security implications. The short answer is, “No.” Melvin Richard Robinson III (“Plaintiff”), who proceeds pro se, brings this putative Bivens action against two Secret Service officers, Aaron Pilgrim 1 and Paul Naples (“Defendants”) for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights arising from his arrest in Washington, D.C. on June 5, 2020. The arrest resulted from law enforcement’s discovery that Plaintiff’s vehicle, parked a short distance from the White House, contained a high capacity magazine, a 10mm bullet, and brass knuckles. 2 In rambling and often confusing filings, Plaintiff appears to assert that Defendants violated his rights under the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims on various grounds, including that Plaintiff’s pleadings fail to state a claim for relief; that Plaintiff’s claims are barred 1 “Pilgrim” appears to be the proper spelling of this defendant’s last name, and that spelling will be used throughout the opinion. 2 Plaintiff faces criminal charges in Washington, D.C. for possession of the high-capacity magazine. See U.S. v. Robinson, Case No. 2020 CF2 005181 (D.C. Sup. Ct. 2020). 1 by the doctrine of sovereign immunity; that no Bivens claims can be maintained against the Defendants; and that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. In response to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff appeared to raise yet more claims: that his Eighth and Ninth Amendment rights were violated, too. Although Plaintiff’s allegations are far from a model of clarity—and, indeed, contain a number of irrelevant statements and ad hominem attacks on Defendants’ counsel—the Court has given them the most liberal reading possible. Even so, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants and that a Bivens remedy should not be extended to his individual capacity claims, which, in any event, are barred by qualified immunity. The Court therefore grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 3 I. BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background In this case, it is helpful to first recount the procedural background before discussing the factual allegations in the operative complaint and the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff first brought suit against the Defendants on October 6, 2020 (the “Initial Complaint”). See ECF No. 1. The Initial Complaint, which was filed using a fillable “Complaint For Violation of Civil Rights” form, indicated that Plaintiff was bringing a Bivens claim for violations of his Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendment rights. See id. at 3. In response to the form’s question “What are the facts underlying your claim(s)?,” Plaintiff’s entire response was that he was “[a]rrest[ed] by the Secret Service behind white house – the local agencies should have camera …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals