Prince v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Background

Beowulf Adalbert von Prince filed a 118-page complaint without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. The complaint invoked federal-question jurisdiction and referred to sections of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), a statute governing when foreign states and their agencies may be sued in U.S. courts. The events described allegedly occurred on September 1, 1939, and from 2006 through 2019 in locations in Europe.

Prince alleged political persecution connected to citizenship of the Free City of Danzig, detention in Belgium, Switzerland, and Germany, physical and health-related injuries, and other harms. He appeared to argue that this history entitled him to be declared the owner of gold bullion stored by the Federal Republic of Germany at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He asked the court to confirm his ownership and require the bank to sell and transfer $100 million worth of gold to his account.

Reasons for dismissal

The court explained that the FSIA is the exclusive basis for subject-matter jurisdiction in lawsuits against a foreign state. But Prince sued the Federal Reserve Bank, which the court held is not a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state. The FSIA therefore did not provide jurisdiction for his claims against the bank.

The court also considered the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which can provide jurisdiction over certain claims by a non-U.S. citizen involving torts committed in violation of international law or a treaty. The court held that the ATS could not support Prince’s claims because the alleged tortious conduct occurred in several European countries. Under Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent discussed in the opinion, the ATS generally does not apply when the relevant conduct occurred outside the United States. The court therefore dismissed any ATS claims.

Leave to replead and disposition

Because Prince was representing himself, the court granted him an opportunity to amend unless amendment would be futile. The court’s conclusion states that the complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which permits dismissal of certain claims filed without a lawyer, including claims that fail to state a claim for relief.

The court granted Prince 60 days’ leave to replead his claims against the Federal Reserve Bank. The amended complaint had to be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, labeled “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 22-CV-9394 (LTS). The court stated that if Prince did not timely amend, or could not show good cause for failing to do so, it would enter judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The opinion does not decide whether Prince could ultimately prevail on an amended complaint.