Dixon v. Biden

Background

Yusuf Dixon, appearing without a lawyer, sued Joseph Biden, Kamala Harris, Alejandro Mayorkas, Eric Adams, and Keechant L. Sewell. He invoked the Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act, known as the SPEECH Act, 28 U.S.C. § 4101, and federal criminal statutes. He alleged defamation, conspiracy to murder, interference with agency functions, conspiracy to defraud the United States, deprivation of rights under color of law, treason, and obstruction or impairment of legitimate government activity. He also alleged that shelters were not allowing him to stay, leaving him to live on the streets. He sought damages, a full investigation, and to be moved with his child to safety.

The court had previously allowed Dixon to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It therefore reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction and interpreted the pro se complaint liberally, while applying the requirement that it contain enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the complaint did not allege facts implicating the SPEECH Act. That statute concerns enforcement of certain foreign defamation judgments, and the complaint did not arise under it.

The court considered whether Dixon’s allegations about being denied shelter could be understood as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows claims for certain constitutional violations by state or local officials. The court concluded that the allegations did not state an individual-capacity claim against Mayor Adams because Dixon did not allege Adams’s personal involvement. They also did not state an official-capacity claim because Dixon did not allege that a New York City policy, practice, or custom caused the denial of shelter. The opinion also noted that Dixon did not allege personal involvement by Biden, Harris, or Mayorkas in violating his rights.

The court further held that Dixon could not initiate a federal criminal prosecution against the defendants or obtain an order requiring prosecutors to bring criminal charges. Decisions to prosecute belong to prosecutors, who have discretion over whether to bring criminal cases.

Disposition

The court concluded that Dixon’s claims, except for the possible shelter-denial claim, were frivolous and declined to allow amendment because amendment would be futile. It dismissed any claim Dixon may have been making about denial of shelter without prejudice to repleading it in a new action. It dismissed the remaining claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.