UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

QUINCETTA Y. CARGILL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:20-cv-920-AMM-GMB ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) OF JUSTICE, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION The Magistrate Judge entered a report on August 23, 2022 recommending the dismissal of this action with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Doc. 25. On September 12, 2022, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss her claims on the grounds that she filed a case against the United States in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington “where the claims are exact in nature” and she intends to add the United States Department of Justice as a defendant. Doc. 26. The Magistrate Judge explained in the report that the Department of Justice is not a proper defendant and thus the plaintiff’s claims are due to be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Doc. 25 at 6–7. The Magistrate Judge also explained that even if the plaintiff could sue the Department of Justice, her claims still fail individually. /d. at 7. The plaintiff's Federal Tort Claims Act claims cannot be brought against a federal agency, her Thirteenth Amendment claim fails as a matter of law, and her Equal Protection claim does not fall within the three narrow categories under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,

(1971). Doc. 25 at 7-8. Even if the plaintiffs Equal Protection claim

was cognizable under Bivens, it would still be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. A477, 487 (1994). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the claims in this action, Doc. 26, presumably without prejudice, so that she may assert the exact claims against the Department of Justice in a pending action is DENIED. After careful consideration of the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge’s report, the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. Consistent with that recommendation and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), this action is due

to be dismissed with prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and as frivolous.' A final judgment will be entered. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE As noted by the Magistrate Judge, this dismissal with prejudice does not prevent the plaintiff from attempting to state her claims against the proper defendant. See Doc. 25 at 9, n.7.