Brown v. 46th President of the United States of America
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-01954
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Brown v. 46th President, Judge Swain dismissed Brown’s complaint for frivolousness and sovereign immunity, and dismissed his subpoena request as moot.
Damonte Brown’s case was dismissed at the fee-waiver screening stage. The defendants named in the complaint—the 46th President of the United States and the White House—were treated as protected by sovereign immunity, and Brown was not allowed to amend or proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
What happened
In Brown v. 46th President of the United States of America, Damonte Brown, representing himself, sued the 46th President of the United States and the White House. He sought a subpoena and $11 billion in damages, but his complaint did not explain the events underlying his claims or why he was entitled to that relief.
The court found that the complaint was frivolous because it lacked a factual or legal basis. The court also held that sovereign immunity generally prevents suits against the federal government, its agencies, and federal officers acting in their official roles unless immunity has been waived. The court concluded that amending the complaint would be futile because Brown sought relief from immune defendants.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under sovereign immunity and declined to allow amendment. She dismissed Brown’s subpoena request as moot and denied him permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Brown v. 46th President of the United States of America · No. 1:22-cv-01954
- Laura Swain
- May 16, 2022
Background
Damonte Brown filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. He sued the “46th President of the United States” and “the White House,” invoking diversity jurisdiction. He sought to subpoena the Biden/Harris administration and settle claims against it. The complaint did not describe the events giving rise to the case. It stated that the administration was “non-complaint” after Brown provided it with a subpoena and included statements and references that did not explain a legal claim. Brown sought $11 billion in damages for alleged grievances and events involving the U.S. Department of Defense.
Court’s analysis
Because Brown was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying fees, the court reviewed the complaint under the statute governing fee-waived cases. That statute requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or otherwise falls within the statute’s dismissal grounds. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks authority to hear the subject matter.
The court held that the complaint was frivolous because it alleged no facts suggesting a plausible legal claim and did not explain the basis for the requested subpoena or damages. The court separately held that sovereign immunity barred the claims against the federal government. Sovereign immunity generally prevents federal courts from hearing suits against the United States, federal agencies, and federal officers sued in their official capacities unless the government has waived that protection. The court stated that the allegations did not suggest that the Federal Tort Claims Act provided a basis for Brown’s claims.
The court also considered whether Brown should be allowed to amend his complaint. It declined to grant leave to amend because, even if Brown added facts about an injury, the defendants from whom he sought relief were immune. The opinion does not identify any merits determination about the alleged underlying events.
Disposition
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Brown’s complaint under the doctrine of sovereign immunity for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also dismissed the complaint as frivolous because it lacked a basis in law or fact, declined to grant leave to amend, and dismissed Brown’s request for a subpoena as moot. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Brown permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.