Glow Natural Health Ministry v. United States

Background

The plaintiffs were Juli Anne Mazi and an entity affiliated with her. Mazi represented herself and was proceeding without paying filing fees. Before requiring service of the complaint, the court screened it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires review of a complaint filed by a person proceeding without paying filing fees and allows dismissal if the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant.

The complaint was 680 pages long and included numerous attachments. It referenced a tax liability and appeared to seek $30 million from the United States for “false allegations and claims.” The court said the claim might relate to Mazi’s conviction for wire fraud and false statements involving healthcare matters, and to her resulting 33-month sentence. The court also said the complaint appeared to include an attempt to challenge that conviction in the civil case.

Analysis and ruling

The court found the complaint frivolous because it appeared to be an impermissible collateral attack on the criminal conviction. The court explained that a challenge to the conviction must be raised on appeal or, if appropriate after the appeal, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; it could not be brought as a civil damages lawsuit against the United States. The court also found that the complaint did not provide a clear statement of what Mazi wanted and why she wanted it.

The court therefore dismissed the complaint. Because the complaint had many attachments and Mazi was representing herself, the court allowed her to amend. Any amended complaint had to state the claims and supporting facts in one document, without relying on attachments, and identify the specific facts and actors connected to each claim. The deadline was August 14, 2023. Alternatively, Mazi could voluntarily dismiss the case by filing a one-page notice; the order expressly stated that such a voluntary dismissal would operate without prejudice. If she did neither, the court said it would reassign the case to a district judge and recommend dismissal.

Classification and effect

This was a screening and pleading order, not a decision on the merits of a properly stated civil claim. The complaint was dismissed at the initial screening stage, but the court allowed an opportunity to amend. The order did not state that the court’s dismissal of the complaint itself was with prejudice or without prejudice.

Judge Laurel Beeler signed the order on July 2, 2023. The supplied case information identifies Susan Illston as the judge, but the opinion text identifies Laurel Beeler as the United States Magistrate Judge who issued and signed this order.