Pierre v. Consulate General of Haiti

Background

Marc Pierre appeared without a lawyer and sued the Consulate General of Haiti and other defendants under the Alien Tort Claims Act, a federal law that gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain claims by a noncitizen for torts committed in violation of international law or a United States treaty. Pierre sought “the 20 million USD paid to France in 1888 due to the 1825 Royal Ordinance of Charles X.” He described the case as a class action and attempted to bring claims on behalf of Haiti, an organization called Haiti Reformation Project, and several individuals.

The complaint was 479 pages long and repeated allegations concerning Haiti, the United Nations, other countries and entities, the Haiti Reformation Project, the Petrocaribe scandal, and the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moise. Pierre identified himself as an “attorney-in-fact,” national agent, and representative, but the opinion does not indicate that he was licensed to practice law.

Screening standard

Because Pierre had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also noted that it had to read a self-represented litigant’s pleading liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.

Claims brought for other people

The court held that a nonlawyer may represent only himself or herself in federal court. Although Pierre called himself an attorney-in-fact, the complaint did not suggest that he was licensed to practice law. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice the claims Pierre asserted on behalf of Haiti and the following named individuals: Denise Jean-Jacques; Isabelle Pierre; Sony Louis; Jean Merisier; Jean Charlot; Bense Mackenson; Khadija Rahmn-Aksp; Jimmy Michel; Martha Brigarde; Peterson Jacinthe; and Joline Camille.

Pierre’s own claims and leave to amend

The court stated that the complaint did not suggest Pierre was seeking relief on his own behalf or that any defendant had violated his rights under the Alien Tort Claims Act. Because he was proceeding without a lawyer, however, the court granted Pierre 30 days to amend. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and had to include any facts or claims Pierre wanted the court to consider.

The court directed Pierre to provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim against each defendant, defendant addresses if available, the names and titles of relevant people, descriptions of the relevant events and their approximate dates and locations, his injuries, and the relief he sought.

Disposition

The court dismissed all claims brought on behalf of Haiti and the named individual plaintiffs. It granted Pierre 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint meeting the stated requirements. The court stated that if Pierre failed to comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Pierre the ability to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.