Moore v. US Congress/United States of Amer.

Background

Janette Moore, also identified as Janette Pierre-Louis, sued the United States Congress and the United States. She appeared without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. Her 83-page complaint alleged that her constitutional rights had been violated beginning in September 2019 in locations including New York City, Nashville, Washington, D.C., Jamaica, Italy, Canada, and England. The complaint described alleged crimes, injuries, conspiracies, and failures by Congress and others to protect civilians, but the opinion does not identify a coherent legal claim that would support relief against these defendants.

Dismissal

The court explained that it could dismiss a paid complaint if it was frivolous or if the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. A frivolous claim is one lacking an arguable basis in law or fact; factual allegations may be frivolous when they are irrational or wholly incredible. The court said it had read Moore’s pro se filing liberally and considered the strongest claims it suggested, but concluded that the allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported them.

The court held that amendment would be futile because the defects could not be cured. It therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), without granting leave to amend. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Order to Show Cause

The court noted that Moore had filed two prior related actions in the same court that had been dismissed as frivolous, with one also dismissed based on sovereign immunity. The court also noted that an earlier order had warned her that additional duplicative or frivolous litigation could lead to a filing restriction.

The court therefore ordered Moore to show cause—meaning to explain why the proposed restriction should not be imposed—within 60 days of the order. She was required to submit a declaration stating good cause why she should not be barred from filing future actions in that court without first obtaining permission. The court stated that, if she did not timely submit the declaration or if it did not show good cause, the filing restriction would be entered. The order did not itself state that the restriction had already been imposed.

Other Disposition

The court directed the clerk to mail the order to Moore and note service on the docket. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees.