UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

"ILEog

J“L ~ 9 2013 '
CATHY L. TooLE, *'§;I'<j,ku.s. oisrr,~
C
'upr¢y Cour*t:nd
Plaintiff,
v. : Civil Action N0. t 5 ./  €)y

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 actionj 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 Southem District of Mississippi were
assigned.l Plaintiff alleges that these judges have deprived her of equal and impartial justice
under the law. See generally id. at l-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." Ia'. 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 plaintiffs 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. Princzpi, No.03-5095, 2003 WL
22097797, at *l (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 beneflt"); Higgins v. Kelh/,
824 F.2d 690, 691 (8th Cir. l987) (per curiam) (affirrning 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 Slates, N0. 8:05-cv-Ol5l l, 2007 WL 4614771, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2007) ("The plain
language of 38 U.S.C. § 5l1(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.").

/\

The plaintiffs"claims against the . . . federal judges are barred on judicial immunity
grounds?’ Caldwell v. Kagan, 455 F. App’x l, l (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citing Forrester v. Whz`te, 484
U.S. 219 (l988) and Sina’ram v. Sua'a, 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.

/@//<W~

United ates District Judge

ina @/1(»/>@11>

