Nguyen v. United States

Background

Mai-Trang Thi Nguyen filed the lawsuit and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion states that she represented herself. Nguyen alleged that, after researching the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians, she learned that Israel was an apartheid government and that the United States supported it by providing at least $3 billion in military aid each year. She sought $5 trillion if a third world war erupted, or $25,000 for filing the lawsuit.

Claims and screening

The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which requires screening of a case filed without the filing fee and requires dismissal if the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court concluded that Nguyen’s claims were frivolous and lacked a plausible legal or factual basis.

The court said Nguyen’s challenge to U.S. aid to Israel was a generalized grievance and that she therefore lacked Article III standing, meaning the personal stake required to bring the lawsuit in federal court. It also concluded that the Declaration of Independence does not create a private right to sue. Nguyen did not identify which provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 she intended to invoke; the court noted that Title VI concerns certain programs in the United States receiving federal funds and does not apply to programs conducted by the federal government itself. The court further stated that the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 had been repealed and did not apply to the alleged facts.

As to Nguyen’s First Amendment establishment-clause claim, the court said she did not explain how she had an individual interest in the alleged U.S. support for Israel’s occupation of religious land or identify another basis for suing the United States or its officials. The court cited the rule that the United States cannot be sued without its consent.

Ruling and next steps

The court provisionally denied Nguyen’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee because her financial affidavit was unclear. She reported employment by “IHSS” and net income of $11,000 per month, but also stated that she was “semi-homeless living in car & people’s room[s],” received disability benefits, and owed $50,000 in debt. The court also noted that she had recently paid filing and appeal fees in other cases in the district.

The court allowed Nguyen to file a corrected fee application and an amended complaint by January 3, 2024. It required the amended complaint to use the case caption and case number in the order and to include “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court explained that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint and would need to include all claims, allegations, and defendants she wished to pursue. If she did not timely file the required documents, or if they did not correct all identified defects, the court stated that it would reassign the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the fee application be denied and/or the complaint be dismissed in whole or in part.