Moore v. United States of America/US Congress
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-00916
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Janette Moore v. United States of America/US Congress, Judge Daniels dismissed the pro se action as frivolous under sovereign immunity and denied appeal fee waiver.
Janette Moore’s lawsuit was dismissed, and she was warned that future duplicative or frivolous civil actions could require prior court permission. The United States was not required to defend the claims on their merits.
What happened
Janette Moore v. United States of America/US Congress involved a 63-page complaint about the federal government’s alleged failure to address problems involving crime, terrorism, immigration, education, and medical care. Moore sought damages and an injunction and represented herself.
The court treated the defendant as the United States. It explained that the United States generally cannot be sued unless it has agreed to the lawsuit, and that damages claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act require the claimant first to file an administrative claim and receive a final decision, or wait six months. Moore did not allege that she had completed those steps.
Judge George B. Daniels dismissed the action as frivolous under sovereign immunity. The court also warned that future duplicative or frivolous lawsuits could lead to a filing restriction requiring her to obtain permission before bringing new civil actions, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Moore v. United States of America/US Congress · No. 1:20-cv-00916
- George Daniels
- Feb. 6, 2020
Background
Janette Moore filed the action without a lawyer and paid the required filing fees. She sued “United States of America/US Congress,” which the court understood to mean the United States of America. She sought money damages and injunctive relief.
The court described Moore’s 63-page complaint as unclear. It said the complaint raised allegations about the federal government’s failure to address problems Moore had experienced and issues involving crime, terrorism, immigration, education, and medical care. The court found that many allegations were unintelligible or irrational.
Legal standard
The court stated that it may dismiss a paid complaint if the action is frivolous or if the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case. It also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, with the court considering the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the filing.
Court’s reasoning
The court applied sovereign immunity, the rule that generally protects the United States from lawsuits unless it has waived that protection. The Federal Tort Claims Act provides a limited waiver for certain damages claims based on wrongful conduct by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment.
Before bringing such a claim in federal court, however, a claimant must first file an administrative claim for damages with the appropriate federal government entity and receive a final written decision. If no decision is issued within six months, the claimant may file in federal court. The court stated that this requirement is jurisdictional and cannot be waived.
Moore did not allege that she had filed an administrative claim, received a final written decision, or waited six months after filing such a claim. The court therefore concluded that her claims were barred by sovereign immunity and dismissed them as frivolous.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action as frivolous under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court warned Moore that additional duplicative or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring her from filing new civil actions in that court without prior permission.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Moore permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The clerk was directed to mail her a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.