Dixon v. Biden

Background

Yusuf Dixon, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an original complaint and then an amended complaint. The court treated both documents together as the operative complaint. Dixon did not identify a basis for federal jurisdiction on the amended-complaint form. He listed alleged violations involving defamation, conspiracy to murder, federal regulations, and deprivation of rights under color of law.

Dixon connected his allegations to the 2020 presidential debate and other dates. He alleged that ShopRite, media organizations, law enforcement, family courts, and criminal courts had been involved in events including being stabbed, being shot at, being jailed, and being unable to see his son. He sought “100 Tillion Dollar + All My GolD.” The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Reasons for dismissal

The court applied the screening requirement for complaints filed without prepayment of fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks authority to hear the subject matter.

The court concluded that the complaint violated Rule 8 because it was not a plain statement showing that Dixon was entitled to relief. Even when read liberally, the allegations did not allow the court to identify the claims Dixon was attempting to assert or reasonably infer that the defendants were liable.

The court also found the claims irrational and without a legally supportable theory. It held that the President has absolute immunity from damages claims based on official acts. It further held that the claims against the Vice President were barred by the government’s immunity from suit. The court explained that a private plaintiff cannot initiate or direct a criminal prosecution against another person.

Leave to amend and other rulings

Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend defective pleadings, the court found that amendment would be futile and declined to grant leave to amend. It dismissed the action as frivolous and as foreclosed by absolute immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii).

The court also referred to Dixon’s other filings in the district court and repeated an earlier warning that continued duplicative or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring him from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless he first received permission. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied fee-free appeal status, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous and as foreclosed by absolute immunity. The opinion does not state an additional dismissal qualifier such as “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”