Kashelkar v. The United States Government

Background

Ashok Kashelkar filed the complaint while representing himself and was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. He sued the “United States Government, specifically” the United States Department of Justice. The court understood the complaint as naming the United States of America as the sole defendant.

Kashelkar sought an order directing the United States Marshals Service to remove him and his personal effects from his current residence and relocate them to a “safe place.” His complaint appeared to seek criminal prosecution of other people. He alleged that he feared for his life and that William Jefferson Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton had “complete control” of the Department of Justice.

Kashelkar later filed several submissions that the court treated as supplements to the complaint. The court described those submissions as difficult to understand and said they appeared to address his living and financial situation, homelessness, Social Security funds, health complications, health insurance, tax debts, efforts to obtain Medicaid and social services, alleged community conspiracies, prior litigation, and other unrelated events.

Reasons for dismissal

The court dismissed the claims against the United States under sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity generally prevents federal courts from hearing suits against the federal government or its agencies unless the government has waived that protection. The court found that Kashelkar identified no facts or legal provision showing a waiver for his claims. It therefore dismissed those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked legal authority to hear them.

The court separately dismissed any claims seeking criminal prosecution of other people. It explained that the decision to prosecute belongs to prosecutors and cannot be directed by a private citizen or the court. The court concluded that Kashelkar lacked legal standing to cause criminal prosecutions and dismissed those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court also dismissed the claims as frivolous under the statute governing cases filed without prepaying fees. It found that Kashelkar provided no plausible factual support for his allegations and that the allegations amounted to unsupported conclusions and suspicions. The court stated that the allegations were irrational and lacked an arguable basis in fact or law.

Other rulings and disposition

The court denied leave to amend because it appeared that the defects in the complaint and supplements could not be cured by amendment.

The court reiterated a warning from a prior related proceeding and warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring Kashelkar from filing a new civil action without prepaying fees unless he first obtained the court’s permission.

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and as frivolous. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Kashelkar permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.