Janczuk v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-03761
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Janczuk v. United States, Judge Swain dismissed the action because sovereign immunity prevented federal-court jurisdiction.
Weronika Janczuk’s lawsuit against the United States was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court declined to allow amendment and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Janczuk v. United States, Weronika Janczuk, representing herself, sued the United States and asked for court-ordered changes to government paperwork involving wills, estates, trusts, death, and related matters.
Janczuk’s complaint did not include facts in its facts section, and she identified no law showing that the United States had waived its protection from lawsuits for these claims. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3), declined to allow an amended complaint, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Janczuk v. United States · No. 1:24-cv-03761
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 26, 2024
Background
Weronika Janczuk filed the action without a lawyer against the United States of America. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction and sought injunctive relief, meaning a court order requiring action. She said the events underlying her claims occurred between 1991 and the present, “in all places touched by death.” Her complaint left the facts section blank but requested that the United States review, organize, and convert to electronic form various paperwork concerning wills, estates, trusts, death, end-of-life care, healthcare needs associated with aging, property, and related matters.
The court had previously granted Janczuk permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Under the statute governing such cases, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied sovereign immunity, the rule that generally prevents federal courts from hearing lawsuits against the federal government unless the government has waived that protection. The court found that Janczuk identified no facts or legal provisions suggesting that the United States had waived sovereign immunity for her claims. It therefore concluded that the claims were barred by sovereign immunity and that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
The court also considered whether Janczuk should be allowed to amend her complaint. It declined to grant leave to amend because it appeared that the defects could not be cured by amendment.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It terminated all other matters in the case and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the case. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.