◆ SpookStack

eo 4 ©: defendants would not be entitled to absolute immunity. In fact, this court is strained to find any facts to support a claim of constitutional violations with respect to these named defendants much less facts which, if true, would entitle plaintiff to relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. at 45-46. Therefore, plaintiff/s complaint is dismissed with respect to all law clerks, court clerks, and court personnel. Also pending is a motion to dismiss by Members of the United States House of Representatives (House Defendants) . Although plaintiff has named several members of the United States House of Representatives, specifically members of the Committee on the Judiciary, plaintiff fails to assert facts to support his allegations which would entitle him to relief. In his complaint, plaintiff states that the House Defendants engaged in an colluded conspiracy and overt acts that resulted in the crimes set forth in Plaintiff’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, and those set forth herein and in the original petition herein. That for over eighteen(18) eyars defendants conspired ‘to conceal and coverup “these: crimes: -by--routinely and systemically denying Plaintiff’s his -Constitutional right to be “Heard. . . « Defendants . . . had evidence showing guilt of Defendants of these crimes, and power to prevent further commission of crimes, but ignored the evidence, and refused to exercise their preventive power... - -Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, pp. 7-8 (mistakes in original). Apparently, plaintiff is displeased with some Congressional action that defendants took or failed to take, however, any failure to intervene on the part of members of the United States House of Representatives on behalf of plaintiff is