Owner/Agent@DudeofNewYork v. U.S. Government

Background

Owner/Agent@DudeofNewYork filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. The complaint named the United States Government and the governments of California, Georgia, Illinois, New York, Delaware, Virginia, South Dakota, Utah, North Carolina, and New Jersey. The plaintiff described the action as a “low-income taxpayer lawsuit” and sought monetary relief.

The plaintiff submitted multiple copies of the court’s general complaint form containing six different fact statements. The court described the allegations as difficult to read and quoted a representative portion. The filings referred to penalties, enforcement, compensation, tax obligations, and purported default notices, but the court found that they did not clearly identify the plaintiff’s legal claims or the conduct for which each defendant was allegedly responsible. Attachments included a code for sending payment through a cash-payment application, a direct-deposit form, and biographies of two people.

Reasons for dismissal

The court applied the screening requirement for complaints filed without an advance filing fee. Under that requirement, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented filings are read liberally, but they still must meet basic pleading requirements.

First, the court held that the complaint violated Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule requires a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief and giving each defendant fair notice of the claim and its legal basis. The court found that the complaint contained no supporting factual allegations, did not provide fair notice, and did not explain the legal basis for the claims or why the federal court had jurisdiction. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Second, the court held that the defendants were immune from the requested money damages. Sovereign immunity generally prevents suits against the United States unless the government has waived that protection. The court dismissed the claims against the United States on that basis and, consequently, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court noted that the Federal Tort Claims Act waives immunity for some tort claims, but found that the allegations did not suggest that statute applied.

The court separately held that the states had not waived their protection under the Eleventh Amendment and that Congress had not removed that protection through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against the state governments for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and because they sought money from defendants immune from that relief.

Amendment, warning, and disposition

The court declined to give the plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint because it found no indication that he could state a claim within the court’s jurisdiction or cure the defects through amendment. The court also considered the plaintiff’s history of six earlier self-represented complaints in the district, all of which the opinion says had been dismissed on the merits. It warned that further meritless litigation could result in an order barring new actions without an advance filing fee unless the plaintiff first obtained court permission.

The court dismissed the complaint. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment.