Bryan v. US Court of Appeals-First Circuit, Clerk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Naseef Bryan, Jr.
v. Civil No. 24-cv-162-JL-AJ
U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Clerk Maria Hamilton
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is plaintiff Naseef Bryan, Jr.’s complaint
(Doc. No. 1) filed in forma pauperis, naming the Clerk of Court
of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit as
the defendant. The matter is before this court for preliminary
review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2).
Preliminary Review Standard
The court may dismiss claims asserted by a plaintiff who is
proceeding in forma pauperis, if: the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from the relief sought, the
complaint fails to state a claim, or the action is frivolous or
malicious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). To determine whether to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court strips away legal
conclusions; takes as true the factual content in the complaint
as a whole, and the inferences reasonably drawn from those facts;
and considers whether the plaintiff has stated a claim that is
plausible on its face. Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91,
Case 1:24-cv-00162-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 06/10/24 Page 1 of 6

2
102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009)). In determining whether a pro se complaint states a
claim, the court must construe the complaint liberally. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
Background
Mr. Bryan is an immigrant and, he asserts, a lawful
permanent resident of the United States. He is seeking to be
naturalized. Mr. Bryan filed another case in the District of New
Hampshire, Bryan v. U.S. Customs and Immigr. Servs., No. 23-cv-
341-LM-AJ (D.N.H.) (“Bryan I”), in which he has filed an
interlocutory appeal, see Bryan v. U.S. Customs and Immigr.
Servs., No. 24-1457 (1st Cir., appeal docketed May 15, 2024)
(“Bryan II”). In Bryan I, Mr. Bryan has sued the U.S. Customs
and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) to compel a ruling on his
naturalization application. He identifies his interlocutory
appeal in that matter, Bryan II, as “related” to his claims in
this case.
In this action, Mr. Bryan asserts that he “utter[ed]
urgency” to the First Circuit, an assertion this court liberally
construes as his having told that court in his pleadings that it
should expedite his interlocutory appeal, although there is no
separately docketed request for expedited consideration in Bryan
Case 1:24-cv-00162-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 06/10/24 Page 2 of 6

3
II, and no order in Bryan II concerning such a request. Mr.
Bryan asserts here that the defendant Clerk and/or the judges of
the First Circuit have intentionally delayed the adjudication of
his claims in Bryan II and are liable for federal crimes and for
violations of the Eleventh Amendment. He seeks unspecified
injunctive relief and criminal prosecutions.
Discussion
I. Federal Criminal Statutes
Mr. Bryan has claimed that defendants are liable for
violations of federal criminal laws. He cites 18 U.S.C. §§ 241,
242, and 246. Mr. Bryan does not have standing to seek relief
under any federal criminal law:
[A] private citizen, such as [the plaintiff], lacks a
judicially cognizable interest in the federal prosecution or
non-prosecution of another. . . .
Further, section 547 of title 28 states, in relevant part,
that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, each United
States attorney, within his district, shall - (1) prosecute
for all offenses against the United States.” . . . Thus,
[the plaintiff] does not have standing to bring a criminal
action in federal court because no statute authorizes him to
do so.
Akande v. Doe, No. 12-10742-RWZ, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65460, at
*3-6, 2012 WL 1658981 (D. Mass. May 10, 2012) (citation
omitted). Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss Mr.
Case 1:24-cv-00162-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 06/10/24 Page 3 of 6

4
Bryan’s claims seeking relief on the basis of alleged violations
of federal criminal statutes.
II. Eleventh Amendment
The plaintiff cites the Eleventh Amendment as a source of
law. The Eleventh Amendment provides as follows:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be
construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced
or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens
of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign
State.
As this case does not implicate any claim against a state, the
Eleventh Amendment is not relevant here. To the extent Mr. Bryan
seeks to invoke that amendment to a state a claim against the
First Circuit Clerk of Court or any First Circuit judge, the
district judge should dismiss that claim.
III. Absolute Immunity
Absolute immunity protects judges from “civil liability for
any normal and routine judicial act,” except those taken in
the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Cok v. Cosentino, 876
F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). Absolute quasi-
judicial immunity bars claims for damages against court personnel
performing discretionary functions closely related to the
judicial process. See id. at 3. Such “immunity applies to all
Case 1:24-cv-00162-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 06/10/24 Page 4 of 6

5
acts of auxiliary court personnel that are ‘basic and integral
part[s] of the judicial function,’ unless those acts are done ‘in
the clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Sindram v. Suda, 986
F.2d 1459, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Such
immunity operates “where the need for liability in damages is
low,” given the safeguards built into the judicial process, “and
the need for a backstop to judicial immunity [is] high,” to avoid
the risk that disappointed litigants, unable to sue judges,
would “‘vent their wrath on clerks, court reporters, and other
judicial adjuncts.’” Id. (citations omitted).
A clerk’s decisions relating to the docketing and processing
of a case and a litigant’s requests for expedited consideration
implicate critical functions of the clerk’s office with respect
to the management and maintenance of the court’s docket. Those
functions are integral to the judicial process. Cf. Ives v.
Agastoni, No. CV 15-30153-MAP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173910, at
*9, 2015 WL 9647559, at *3 (D. Mass. Dec. 14, 2015) (“accepting
filings” and “recording rulings” are judicial functions
“regularly performed by judges and clerks within the scope of
their jurisdiction”), R&R adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1070,
2016 WL 79881 (D. Mass. Jan. 5, 2016). Accordingly, the
plaintiff’s claims relating to the alleged delays in the
Case 1:24-cv-00162-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 06/10/24 Page 5 of 6

6
processing of his interlocutory appeal fall within the scope of
the defendant’s quasi-judicial immunity. For that reason, the
district judge should dismiss those claims.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Bryan’s Complaint should be
dismissed in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Any objections to this Report and
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of
this notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period
may be extended upon motion. Failure to file any objection
within the specified time waives the right to appeal the district
court’s Order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d
163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016). Only those issues raised in the
written objections to this Report and Recommendation “‘are
subject to review in the district court,’” and any issues “‘not
preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.’” Id.
(citations omitted).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
June 10, 2024
cc: Naseef Bryan, Jr., pro se
Case 1:24-cv-00162-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 06/10/24 Page 6 of 6