Moore v. Department of Homeland Security

Background

Karen Tracey Moore and Karen Tracey Moore LLC brought the action against the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Moore proceeded without a lawyer and relied on diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying court fees in advance.

The complaint alleged that the defendants had discriminated against Moore for more than 51 years and had engaged in a government conspiracy involving surveillance, devices allegedly placed inside her body, human trafficking, forced labor, terrorism, and other conduct. It asserted a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and alleged violations of federal criminal statutes. The complaint listed 22 causes of action and sought investigations, dismissal of criminal charges that might be pending against her in any state, and $125 million in damages.

After filing the complaint, Moore filed motions for declaratory relief, permission to use electronic filing, a temporary restraining order, a request for the court to seek counsel, and recusal. She also filed a supplemental pleading repeating the allegations and a motion to recuse supported by affidavits.

Reasons for dismissal

The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without advance fees if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. It must also dismiss a case when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacks legal authority to hear the claims.

First, the court applied sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity generally prevents suits against the federal government and its agencies unless the government has waived that protection. The court held that Moore identified no facts or legal provisions showing a waiver for her claims against the federal agencies. It therefore dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Second, the court found the claims frivolous under the statute governing cases filed without advance fees. It concluded that the allegations about a decades-long government campaign, devices placed in Moore’s body, and related conduct lacked a factual basis and were irrational. The court stated that detailed allegations and strongly held beliefs do not substitute for supporting facts. It therefore dismissed the claims as frivolous.

Amendment and other motions

Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court found amendment would be futile. It concluded that the complaint did not suggest Moore possessed additional facts that could cure the identified defects, so it declined to allow amendment.

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as frivolous. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions as moot and to enter judgment dismissing the action. The opinion did not decide whether the alleged discrimination or other alleged conduct occurred.