Johnson v. FBOP Officer Doherty, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ROBERT WILLIE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
FBOP OFFICER DOHERTY, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-12977-MPK
ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT, AND RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
October 13, 2026
KELLEY, U.S.M.J.
Robert Willie Johnson (“Plaintiff”), who is representing himself, has filed a civil
complaint against FMC Devens (where he is confined), FMC Correction Officer Doherty, the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), and the United Stated Department of Justice (“DOJ”).
Compl., ECF No. 1. The last page of the complaint contains a section titled “Application to
Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs,” which the court treats as a separate motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. at 4. For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny
without prejudice the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, order that this action be
reassigned to a District Judge, and recommend to the District Judge that this action be dismissed.
I. 	Background
According to public records, Plaintiff is currently a defendant in ongoing criminal
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. See
United States v. Johnson, 5:25-MJ-00236 (N.D.N.Y.). By amended order dated March 23, 2026,
that Court held that Plaintiff was currently incompetent to stand trial in the pending federal
criminal matter. Johnson, No. 5:25-MJ-0236, ECF No. 39. The Court also directed that Plaintiff
Case 1:26-cv-12977-WGY Document 6 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 5

2
be committed to a mental health facility for further evaluation and treatment “to determine
whether [he] will attain capacity to permit [his federal criminal] proceedings to go forward.” Id.
A hearing regarding Plaintiff’s competency to stand trial in those proceedings is currently
scheduled for October 30, 2026. Johnson, No. 5:25-MJ-00236, ECF No. 56.
II. 	Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
A prisoner seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis must submit with his motion “a
certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for
the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint . . . obtained from the
appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(2). Plaintiff did not submit this required prison account statement. Accordingly, the
motion is DENIED without prejudice.
III. 	Order to Reassign to a District Judge
Pursuant to General Orders (10-1) and (09-3), a case may be randomly assigned, at the
time of filing, to a Magistrate Judge. This action was drawn to the undersigned Magistrate Judge
under the above-described protocol.
As set forth below, this court concludes that this action is subject to sua sponte dismissal.
However, the parties to this action have not indicated whether they consent or refuse to consent
to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, and, absent the parties’ consent to the final
assignment of this case to a Magistrate Judge, a Magistrate Judge is without jurisdiction to
involuntarily dismiss an action. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). For that reason, the court will
order that the Clerk of Court reassign this case to a District Judge.
Case 1:26-cv-12977-WGY Document 6 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 5

3
IV. 	Review of the Complaint
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must conduct a preliminary review of a complaint
filed by a prisoner against a government entity or employee, and dismiss any claim that is
malicious or frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
damages against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In
conducting this review, the court construes Plaintiff’s complaint liberally because he is
proceeding pro se. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
A. 	Complaint
Plaintiff’s statement of his claim is as follows:
On Jun 5, 2026 PBOP Officer Doherty issued Plaintiff opened and copied legal
mail that was certified and Plaintiff signed for (7) legal mail parcels. On
06/05/2026 Plaintiff received (1) legal mail parcel from FBOP Officer John Doe 1
of FMC Devens that was opened and copied & did not sign for the legal mail.
The U.S. Department of Justice, united States of America, Federal Bureau of
Prisons and FMC Devens has illegally detained Plaintiff since August 12, 2025 &
are subjecting Plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishments.
Compl. at 3. Plaintiff seeks $500 million in damages, release from custody, “dismissals of
criminal complaints,” and “civil investigative demands.” Id. at 4.
B. 	Discussion
“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies
from suit.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). In other words, the United States
(including its various ranches, departments, and agencies) enjoys immunity from suit except in
those instances in which it has expressly consented to be sued. Id. “Sovereign immunity is
jurisdictional in nature,” id., and a waiver of sovereign immunity must be expressly and
unequivocally found in the statutory text and cannot be implied, see Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187,
192 (1996). Here, Plaintiff does not set forth any claim for which the United States has waived
Case 1:26-cv-12977-WGY Document 6 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 5

4
its sovereign immunity. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against the DOJ and the FBP are subject to
dismissal.1
In addition, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief against Officer Doherty.
Plaintiff’s single allegations against Doherty—that he opened and copied unspecified “legal
mail” and had Plaintiff sign for them—does not implicate any constitutional rights.
Finally, the proper avenue for Plaintiff to seek dismissal of the federal criminal charges
against him is by motion in the pending prosecution in the Northen District of New York. See,
e.g., Reese v. Warden Philadelphia FDC, 904 F.3d 244, 247 (3d Cir. 2018) (“Funneling requests
for pretrial relief through the criminal action encourages an orderly, efficient resolution of the
issues, maintains respect for the appellate process, and prevents duplication of judicial work and
judge-shopping.”).
V. 	Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, the court hereby orders:
1. 	The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis within the complaint, ECF No.
1 at 4, is DENIED without prejudice.
2. 	The Clerk of this Court shall reassign this case to a District Judge.
3 	The court RECOMMENDS to the District Judge that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief maybe granted
and because it seeks monetary damages against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
1 The claims against FMC must also be dismissed because it is only a building and therefore not
subject to suit.
Case 1:26-cv-12977-WGY Document 6 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 5

5
VI. 	Review by District Judge
The parties are advised that any party who objects to this recommendation must file a
specific written objection with the Clerk of this Court within fourteen days of service of the
Report and Recommendation. The written objection must specifically identify the portion of the
Report and Recommendation to which objection is made and the basis for such objection. The
parties are further advised that the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit has repeatedly
indicated that failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) shall preclude further appellate
review. See Keating v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 848 F.2d 271 (1st Cir. 1988); U.S. v.
Emiliano Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986); Scott v. Schweiker, 702 F.2d 13, 14 (1st
Cir. 1983); U.S. v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378–79 (1st Cir. 1982); Park Manor Mart, Inc. v. Ford
Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1980); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ M. Page Kelley
M. Page Kelley
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-12977-WGY Document 6 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 5