Who v. U.S. 666 Gov.

Background

Gus Who, an anonymous self-represented plaintiff, sued “U.S. 666 Gov., et al.” over the government’s implementation of regulations requiring a “Real ID” to enter various government buildings. He sought a nationwide injunction. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee, screened his complaint, and ordered him either to use his legal name or file a motion explaining why he should be allowed to proceed anonymously. He then filed two amended complaints and a motion for summary judgment.

Pseudonym

The court denied the request to proceed pseudonymously. Gus Who did not file the required motion explaining why anonymity was necessary. Although he signed the amended complaints with what may be his legal name, he continued to refer to himself as “Gus Who.” The court rejected his statement that there is a God-given right to file a civil action anonymously because he cited no supporting legal authority and the court was unaware of precedent establishing that right.

Failure to State a Claim and Jurisdiction

The court construed the claims against “U.S. 666 Gov.” as claims against the United States Government. It explained that the federal government generally has sovereign immunity, meaning it cannot be sued unless it has waived that immunity by statute. Gus Who did not identify a statute waiving immunity, so the complaint did not name a defendant that could be sued.

The court also concluded that the amended complaints did not establish an Article III case or controversy. Article III limits federal courts to resolving disputes involving an injury that the defendant caused and that the court can remedy. The allegations included alleged targeting by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an allegedly faked assassination attempt on the President, alleged government conspiracies involving care for senior citizens and children, and alleged denial of access to a local museum. But the court found that Gus Who did not state with sufficient particularity what relief he wanted, which defendant should provide it, or how the requested relief related to a legally recognized harm. The court therefore concluded that it lacked an ability or basis to provide relief.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because the amended complaints failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It denied further leave to amend because there was no reason to conclude that additional amendments would fix the identified problems. Because the dismissal was partly based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court specified that the dismissal was without prejudice. It denied Gus Who’s motion for summary judgment as moot. Judge P. Casey Pitts signed the order.