Turner v. Rimon Law

Background

Terrance Turner filed a civil complaint against Rimon Law; Quandrant, Inc.; USSOCOM; the FBI; the CIA; the Secret Service; the IRS; the SEC; and DHS. He had previously been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The complaint listed numerous asserted legal bases, including contract law, common law, fraud, negligence, several federal statutes, and House of Representatives bills.

The factual allegations primarily described an alleged conversation about obtaining clients and generating billable business. The complaint’s civil cover sheet identified the matter as involving contract violations and listed $100,000,000 in damages, while the complaint itself discussed amounts of $600,000 and $500,000 without explaining how those figures related to the damages sought.

Screening standard

Because Turner was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal if a complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court also said that pleadings filed by a person without a lawyer are read liberally, but they still must provide defendants with notice of the claims and the alleged wrongdoing.

Subject-matter jurisdiction

The court found that the complaint did not adequately allege federal-question jurisdiction. Although Turner invoked federal-question jurisdiction, the court understood the allegations as asserting a contract-related dispute involving a private entity. The court explained that ordinary breach-of-contract claims against private parties are generally governed by state law, and it found no allegations connecting the federal agencies to the alleged contract breach or other asserted torts. The complaint also did not allege that Turner had entered into a contract with the United States.

The court separately found that the complaint did not adequately plead diversity jurisdiction. Although the civil cover sheet stated a damages figure of $100,000,000, the complaint did not address that figure or provide facts supporting damages above the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. The court also found that the many listed statutes, legal areas, and bills were not tied to specific allegations in a way that supplied federal jurisdiction.

The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice as frivolous for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1915.

Failure to state a claim

The court also found that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief. It cited the standard requiring enough factual matter to make a claim plausible and to give each defendant fair notice of what the defendant allegedly did wrong.

The complaint listed twenty-one legal authorities and nine defendants, but it did not identify which defendant was responsible for which alleged violation. It did not identify which defendant entered into a contract with Turner, which defendant breached it, or how the alleged contract dispute related to the cited federal laws and other authorities. The court described the factual allegations as insufficiently detailed and cryptic.

The court further found that the complaint alleged no actions or failures to act by Rimon Law, USSOCOM, the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, the SEC, or DHS. Apart from naming those defendants, the complaint did not explain how they could be liable. The court concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim against all defendants, including because it did not provide adequate notice of the claims.

Immunity from monetary relief

The court found that the complaint sought money from federal agencies, including USSOCOM, the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, the SEC, and DHS. It explained that the federal government and its agencies are protected from lawsuits seeking monetary relief unless the government has expressly waived that protection. The court found no allegations showing such a waiver.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under all three mandatory screening grounds in § 1915(e)(2)(B): frivolousness, failure to state a claim, and seeking monetary relief from an immune defendant. The court granted Turner leave to file an amended complaint by November 13, 2023. It warned that if he did not meet that deadline, the case could be dismissed with prejudice. The order also provided information about resources for people representing themselves in federal court.