UNITED srArEs DISTRICT coURr F I L E D FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA

cl DEC 1 9 2011 erk, _ _ ~ - mem A. Greene’ § courts li,sm'§'§‘.~'s'l’,lci§?§'.§il’§l§§. Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No.ll 8 Washington Field Office; U.S. Equal § Employment Opportunity Commission, ) Defendant. § ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis The application will be granted and the case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(ii). Under that statute, the Court is required to dismiss a case "at any time" it determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, has submitted a complaint against the Washington Field Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") based on its processing of his complaint against his former employer. "[N]o cause of action against the EEOC exists for challenges to its processing of a claim." Smith v. Casellas,

(D.C. Cir. I997), cert. dem'ed,

(1997). Rather, "Congress intended the private right of action . . . under which an aggrieved employee may bring a Title VlI action directly against his or her employer [] to serve as the remedy for any improper handling of a

discrimination charge by the EEOC." Ia’. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed. A

Zwt@¢@

Date: December , 201 1 United States District Judge

separate Order accompanies this Memorandu inion.