Ahmed v. Schumer

Background

Jamoda Fuller Ahmed, appearing without a lawyer, sued Senator Chuck Schumer. The opinion says Ahmed paid the filing fees. She alleged violations of her rights and sought the maximum damages allowed.

Ahmed's complaint included references to harassment, discrimination based on religion, race, and gender, a claimed placement on a “red flag list,” threats to her constitutional rights and well-being, and alleged effects on her children. It also referred to freedom of speech, voting, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, disability law, and numerous court decisions. The court found that the complaint consisted largely of phrases, disconnected information, and case citations without facts explaining what Senator Schumer did or why he was legally responsible.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court applied Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. It concluded that Ahmed's allegations did not provide enough factual detail to plausibly show that Senator Schumer or another defendant violated her federally protected rights. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

The court also ruled that the action could not proceed even if Ahmed had stated a recognizable claim. It understood her allegations as challenging Senator Schumer in his official capacities as a federal employee and as a legislator. Sovereign immunity generally prevents lawsuits against the United States, federal agencies, and federal officers sued in their official capacities unless immunity has been waived. The court also explained that the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause gives members of Congress absolute immunity for legislative acts. It concluded that Senator Schumer was protected by sovereign immunity and legislative immunity and dismissed the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3).

Leave to Amend and Litigation Warning

The court declined to give Ahmed permission to file an amended complaint because it concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment.

The opinion lists four earlier actions Ahmed filed against other members of Congress in state and federal courts. According to the opinion, those actions were dismissed for failure to state a claim, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or frivolousness. The court warned that additional vexatious or frivolous litigation in that court could result in an order barring Ahmed from filing new actions without prior permission.

Disposition

The court dismissed Ahmed's complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It terminated all other pending matters and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.