Noto v. Federal Government

Background

Anthony Noto filed an amended complaint without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and identified the alleged rights involved as the Fourth Amendment and “Governance Fraud.” The defendants were listed as “Federal Government,” “Department of Homeland Services” (which the court understood to mean the United States Department of Homeland Security), “Angel.co,” and “State Government.” The opinion notes that “State Government” appeared in the body of the complaint but not in its caption.

Noto alleged that a system involving the Department of Homeland Security, a “Noto interface,” and a “Sentry system” was used to identify suspicious activity and request or analyze data. He also described alleged business dealings, claimed that “Governance Fraud” led to a federal obstruction case, and alleged that events involving Kristen Laverty, his mother, and his incarceration caused injuries. He sought $8 million from the Fu Wah Group and settlements from the parties he said prevented money and bail from being received.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the screening rules for complaints filed without prepaying fees. Those rules require dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or presents claims over which the court lacks authority. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers generously, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make the asserted claims plausible.

Claims against State Government and Angel.co

The court treated the claims against “State Government” as claims against New York. It held that those claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protects states and their arms from suits in federal court. The court stated that New York had not waived that protection and that Congress had not removed it for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court therefore dismissed the Section 1983 claims against “State Government.”

The court treated the claims against Angel.co as claims under Section 1983. That statute requires a plaintiff to allege both a violation of a federal right and action under state law by a state actor. The court found that Angel.co appeared to be a private party and that Noto had not alleged that it acted for a state or other government body. The court therefore concluded that Noto had not stated a Section 1983 claim against Angel.co.

Claims against the Federal Government and the Department of Homeland Security

The court treated the claims against “Federal Government” as claims against the United States. It held that sovereign immunity generally prevents federal courts from hearing suits against the United States and its agencies unless immunity has been waived. The court dismissed Noto’s claims against the Federal Government and the Department of Homeland Security under sovereign immunity and, as a result, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court considered whether Noto’s reference to a “Federal Bivens obstruction case” was an attempt to invoke a legal remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officials. It did not reach whether such a remedy was available because Noto did not name an individual federal defendant who could be liable under that theory. The court also considered whether “Governance Fraud” referred to the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives sovereign immunity for certain tort claims against the United States. The court found no indication that Noto had first filed the required administrative claim and exhausted that process. It further found that his allegations did not plausibly show that a federal employee committed a tort while acting within the scope of employment.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, because some claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, under sovereign immunity, and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It denied leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Noto fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.