Prince v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Background

Beowolf Von Prince filed the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. He sued the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, seeking to be declared the owner or disposer of gold bullion allegedly stored by the Federal Republic of Germany. His allegations referred to events beginning with the invasion of the Free City of Danzig in 1939, his alleged treatment and incarceration in several European countries, and another individual, Karin Leffer.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed the original complaint but allowed Prince 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court had ruled that the Federal Reserve Bank did not qualify as a foreign state or as an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the federal law governing when foreign states may be sued in U.S. courts. The court also treated the pleading as potentially raising a claim under the Alien Tort Statute, a federal law concerning certain violations of international law, but dismissed that claim because the alleged events occurred abroad.

Analysis

Prince’s amended complaint was substantially similar to the original pleading and remained deficient. The court rejected Prince’s assertion that a District of Columbia court had ruled that he had jurisdiction over the asset. According to this court, that earlier case had instead been dismissed for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Prince also invoked 28 U.S.C. § 3203, which can allow a litigant to request a writ of execution against property after obtaining and properly registering a final judgment. The court held that Prince had not obtained a final judgment in this case or another district and had not registered one in the Southern District of New York. He therefore was not entitled to a writ of execution.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal of a fee-free case that fails to state a claim. Because Prince had already been given an opportunity to amend and the defects could not be cured by another amendment, the court denied further leave to amend. The court did not add a separate with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation in its conclusion.

The court warned that further duplicative or frivolous litigation could result in an order requiring Prince to explain why he should not be barred from filing new cases without prior permission while proceeding without paying fees. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.