Thompson v. Library of Congress
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-05570
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Thompson v. Library of Congress, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the frivolous complaint and denied fee-free appeal status.
Robert A. Thompson’s lawsuit against the Library of Congress was dismissed at the court’s screening stage, and he was denied the ability to appeal without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Thompson v. Library of Congress, Robert A. Thompson sued the Library of Congress, claiming violations of his constitutional rights and seeking damages and declaratory relief. He described proposed intellectual property involving time calculations and assigned it a value of $9 trillion, but the complaint named the Library as the only defendant without alleging facts against it.
The court said the complaint had no plausible legal basis and that its factual allegations were irrational. It dismissed the complaint as frivolous under the statute governing complaints filed without paying filing fees and declined to allow an amended complaint because the defects could not be fixed.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the dismissal and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Thompson could not proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. Library of Congress · No. 1:21-cv-05570
- Laura Swain
- July 7, 2021
Background
Robert A. Thompson filed a lawsuit without a lawyer against the Library of Congress, alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. The court had granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The complaint identified Thompson as the “seller” and the Federal Reserve Bank as the “bonafide purchaser.” It described alleged intellectual property called “GalacTik,” involving a redesigned system for measuring time, and a “formular 9 cypher” intended to eliminate daylight saving time and leap years. The complaint assigned this alleged property a value of $9 trillion and sought $250,000 in damages plus unspecified declaratory relief.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from that relief. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Even reading the complaint generously because Thompson was representing himself, the court found no facts suggesting a plausible legal claim. Thompson cited no legal basis for obtaining damages or a declaration from the Library of Congress, and the complaint contained no allegations against the Library, which was the only named defendant. The court also found that the factual allegations were irrational. In a footnote, the court stated that sovereign immunity would otherwise bar suits against federal agencies unless the government had waived that immunity, and it found no indication of such a waiver here.
Ruling
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court declined to grant leave to amend because it concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.