Sullivan v. Trump
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11824
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Sullivan v. Trump, Judge McMahon dismissed Sullivan’s complaint after finding presidential and federal-government immunity barred his claims.
Mark A. Sullivan’s complaint was dismissed against Donald Trump and the remaining federal defendants. Sullivan was not allowed to amend the complaint and was denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Sullivan v. Trump, Mark A. Sullivan, representing himself, alleged that the defendants violated his rights and blamed them for events in his life. The court had allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees, but found that his complaint was difficult to understand.
The court ruled that Sullivan’s claims against Donald Trump concerned actions taken in Trump’s official capacity as President, for which the President has absolute immunity from damages claims. The court also ruled that claims against the remaining federal defendants were barred by federal-government immunity because the complaint gave no indication that Sullivan had first completed the required administrative process for a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint, declined to allow Sullivan to amend it because the defects could not be fixed, and denied him permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Sullivan v. Trump · No. 1:19-cv-11824
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 17, 2020
Background
Mark A. Sullivan, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Donald Trump and the other defendants. The court previously allowed Sullivan to proceed without prepaying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP). Sullivan invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged, in difficult-to-understand language, that the defendants had obstructed his work life, interfered with a temporary claim and inheritance, withheld important evidence, and were involved in other events he described.
Screening standard
Under the statute governing IFP cases, the court must dismiss a complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or if the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The court must read a self-represented litigant’s complaint generously, but the complaint still must provide enough factual information to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible.
Claims against Donald Trump
The court held that Sullivan’s claims against Trump arose from acts performed in Trump’s official capacity as President. Under the court’s analysis, the President has absolute immunity from damages claims based on official acts. The court therefore dismissed Sullivan’s claims against Trump as barred by absolute immunity and as frivolous under the IFP-screening statute.
Claims against the remaining defendants
The court held that federal-government sovereign immunity generally bars suits against the federal government and its agencies unless immunity has been waived. The Federal Tort Claims Act provides a limited waiver for certain tort claims, but requires a claimant to first submit an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency and receive a final written decision. The court found no indication that Sullivan had completed that process. It therefore dismissed the claims against the additional federal defendants as barred by sovereign immunity.
Disposition
The court declined to give Sullivan permission to amend because it concluded that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment. It dismissed the complaint. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.