FILED

UNITED sTATEs DISTRICT coURT JAN 30 201$~

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA mem U.S. msmct & Bankruptcy

Reginald Woods’ ) Courts forthe District of columbia

Plaintiff, § v. § civil Acri@n No. - /_?»§¢ U.S. Department of Justice, § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A, which requires 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.

The plaintiff, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Talladega, Alabama, purports to be "a ‘private’ Attorney General." Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to

at 3. He sues the U.S. Department of Justice but his allegations are far from clear. The plaintiff "flles this complaint [to contest] the unequal application of the same law to different racial groups or peoples under the stacking provision of

(0), which is a mandatory minimum that is statutorily required by operation federal law."

Claiming that he "[has] been subjected to such unconstitutional and racially discriminatory operational procedures," the plaintiff seeks monetary damages in excess of $10 million.

.

As a pro se litigant, the plaintiff can represent only himself in this matter. See

; U.S. ex rel. Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 274 F. Supp. 2d l0, l5~l6 (D.D.C. l

2003) (examining cases). At best, the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages for an alleged unconstitutional sentence that he does not claim has been invalidated via a writ of habeas corpus or some other recognized authority. See Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994). (holding "that, in order to recover damages for [an] alleged[] unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment . . ., plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus"). Therefore, this action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted.]

Date: January l"i>w , 2014

l A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

2