SUIT AGAINST ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DAMAGES FOR INDIVIDUAL'S CRIMINAL CONVICTION DISMISSED.

[2] The court may dismiss plaintiff's complaint, sua sponte, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) when the allegations of a complaint are attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, and/or no longer open to discussion. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974);¹ see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) ("Dismissal for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the federal claim is proper only when the claim is 'so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy."' (quoting Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974))).

[3] In this case, plaintiff is clearly attacking his conviction and sentence; such action is foreclosed by prior decisions. See Swanson v. Stephenson, CV No. 00-RRA-1560-S, doc. 21 (Aug. 30, 2000); see also Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484-87 (1994) (in order to establish his claims for malicious prosecution, plaintiff must establish that the prior criminal proceedings terminated in his favor). Moreover, the court finds that plaintiff's present action is completely devoid of merit.

[4] Thus, the Motion to Dismiss, filed by Birdsong, is GRANTED, and all claims against Birdsong are DISMISSED. Also, for the reasons set forth above, all claims against the remaining defendants are DISMISSED, sua sponte.