
    Jael SPEIGHTS, Plaintiff, v. Maria A. PALLANTE et al., Defendants.
    Civil Action No. 13-1484
    United States District Court, District of Columbia.
    September 16, 2013
    September 26, 2013
    Jael Speights, Waupun, WI, pro se.
   MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERYL A. HOWELL, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring the Court to screen and dismiss a prisoner’s complaint upon a determination that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).

Plaintiff is a Wisconsin state prisoner suing the Register of Copyrights Maria A. Pallante and unidentified employees of the United States Copyright Office under the Federal Tort Claims Act, (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80, and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Compl. at 1. He alleges that Pallante “either intentionally or negligently failed to deposit and store [his manuscript] submission in accords with Title 17 U.S.C. sec. 704.” Id. ¶ 16. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants violated the copyright statute, compensatory damages of $150,000, and an unspecified amount of punitive damages. Id. ¶¶ 20-22.

Under the FTCA, the United States has consented to be sued for monetary damages only “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Such consent does not encompass the alleged conduct forming the basis of this action since the District of Columbia does not have a law analogous to the Copyright Act under which a private person can be held liable. See Hombeck Offshore Transp., LLC v. U.S., 569 F.3d 506, 510 (D.C.Cir.2009) (agreeing with other circuit courts “that ‘it is virtually axiomatic that the FTCA does not apply where the claimed negligence arises out of the failure of the United States to carry out a federal statutory duty in the conduct of its own affairs’ ”) (quoting Sea Air Shuttle Corp. v. United States, 112 F.3d 532, 536 (1st Cir.1997)) (alterations and other citations omitted).

To state a Bivens claim, “a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Plaintiff has not alleged a constitutional violation, and the alleged facts do not support Pallante’s personal involvement in the alleged misconduct.

Since plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the FTCA or Bivens, his claim for a declaratory judgment also fails because “the availability of [declaratory] relief presupposes the existence of a judicially remediable right.” Ali v. Rumsfeld, 649 F.3d 762, 778 (D.C.Cir.2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.  