Thompson v. Donald J. Trump Inc. U.S.A.

Background

ODRAY KEVIN THOMPSON filed the action while detained at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island and represented himself. He sued Donald J. Trump, Inc., USA; Prince Andrew; Princess Kate Middleton; Megan Markle; L. Ward; Alvin Bragg; Benny Boscio, Jr.; and Warden Cort. The opinion describes his allegations as including kidnapping, abuse, being handcuffed, beatings, and working for five cents a day. He sought release, slavery reparations, and recognition of an asserted financial interest worth more than $70 billion.

Screening standard

Because Thompson was a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough factual detail to make liability plausible and to give each defendant notice of the allegations.

Redemptionist and sovereign-citizen theories

The court concluded that Thompson’s assertions appeared to rely at least partly on “redemptionist” or “sovereign citizen” theories. It explained that these theories generally posit a fictional “strawman” associated with a person’s name and government records, and claim that filings or liens can unlock money or require officials to release a prisoner. The court held that these theories are frivolous and dismissed the claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It did not grant leave to replead claims based on those theories.

Excessive-force claim

Thompson alleged only that he suffered “jail beatings.” The court explained that a pretrial detainee may bring a claim when force used purposely or knowingly was objectively unreasonable. It dismissed this claim for failure to state a claim because Thompson did not identify who was involved, describe what happened, or specify where and when the force occurred. The court also noted that he did not appear to name an individual defendant personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation. Because additional facts might support an excessive-force claim, the court granted leave to replead it.

Forced-labor claims

The court considered both a claim under the Thirteenth Amendment and a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act. For the Thirteenth Amendment claim, the court stated that pretrial detainees may be protected from involuntary labor, but Thompson did not allege that he was required to work through explicit threats, physical coercion, or legal coercion. The allegations therefore did not state a Thirteenth Amendment claim.

For the Fair Labor Standards Act claim, the court explained that prison labor generally does not create an employment relationship covered by federal minimum-wage requirements. Thompson did not allege that he was working in a capacity other than providing services to the prison or plead facts showing that he was an employee under that law. The court therefore found that the low-wage allegation, without more, failed to state a claim. It nevertheless granted leave to replead labor-related claims if Thompson could provide additional supporting facts.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), but directed the clerk not to enter judgment and held the matter open. Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Thompson 60 days to file an amended complaint limited to claims that he was subjected to excessive force or involuntary labor as a pretrial detainee at Rikers Island. Any amended complaint had to identify the individuals allegedly involved and provide facts describing who did what, when and where the events occurred, the injuries, and the requested relief. The court stated that if Thompson did not timely amend or seek an extension, it would enter judgment dismissing the complaint. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The order also referred Thompson to the New York Legal Assistance Group’s clinic for limited assistance to people representing themselves.