Downey v. US of America

Background

Mark Downey filed this action without a lawyer and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins granted that application and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a required preliminary review of certain complaints filed by people who cannot pay court fees.

The original complaint asserted 45 claims and sought more than $4 billion in compensatory and punitive damages. The complaint appeared to concern the United States government’s alleged failure to streamline its whistleblower program, failure to respond to Downey’s submissions, its budget deficit, and its handling of poorly performing federal employees. It also appeared to challenge alleged monopolistic practices by Apple, Inc. and assert various personal injuries. Judge Cousins found that the complaint did not allege enough facts to state a legal claim and dismissed it while allowing Downey to amend.

Downey timely filed a first amended complaint. Judge Cousins screened that pleading and issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal without leave to amend. The recommendation stated that, although Downey appeared to complain about the government’s failure to respond to whistleblower complaints under the False Claims Act, he had not identified any whistleblower lawsuits he had brought. It also stated that he had not alleged facts supporting his claim that Apple overcharged the United States for iPhones, his allegations concerning federal gift taxes and Apple’s music-streaming service, or his commentary about the federal budget deficit.

Objection

Downey filed an objection within the applicable period. The objection discussed Thomas Jefferson, Virginia, sovereign immunity, constitutional and statutory provisions, the alleged whistleblower claims, the amount of requested damages, and Apple’s prices and alleged gift-tax liability. The court found that these assertions did not provide an adequate factual or legal basis for any claim.

Ruling

Judge Beth Labson Freeman adopted Judge Cousins’s Report and Recommendation. The court explained that leave to amend may be denied when, among other reasons, a plaintiff repeatedly fails to correct deficiencies or further amendment would be futile. The court found no undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice to the United States, which had not been served. But it found that Downey had repeatedly failed to cure the deficiencies after amending once and that his filings did not indicate he could state a viable claim.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the first amended complaint without leave to amend and dismissed the action with prejudice.