perkins v. garland

Background

The complaint listed Ronald Odelle Perkins, several estates, and Shiann Jewell Currie as plaintiffs and named Merrick Garland and more than 150 other defendants. Only Ronald Perkins signed the complaint. Because the opinion states that a nonlawyer cannot represent another person, the court treated Ronald Perkins as the sole plaintiff. The court also directed that the matter be captioned In re Ronald Odelle Perkins, without listing each defendant.

Perkins represented himself. He described himself using several titles and asserted that the court had authority under admiralty and maritime law, various historical treaties, and other legal sources. The complaint referred to a “Master Bill of Lading Ship Manifestation” and the “Ecclesiastical High Courts of Chancery.” It sought relief concerning alleged rights to property, money, land, work, trade, travel, reputation, and protection from United States laws and liabilities.

Screening standard

The court explained that it was required to dismiss a complaint filed without the filing fee when the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from a legally immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. A frivolous claim is one lacking an arguable legal or factual basis. The court also stated that it must read a self-represented person’s complaint liberally, but the complaint still must provide a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief.

The opinion states that Perkins had neither paid the filing fee nor submitted an application to proceed without paying it. The court identified that failure as an additional basis for dismissal, apart from its finding that the action was frivolous.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the complaint had no factual basis or legally valid theory on which Perkins could obtain relief. It noted that the complaint listed Perkins’s estate as a plaintiff even though Perkins was not deceased. The court said that this and other allegations appeared to reflect a “redemptionist” theory that Perkins was the inheritor of his own physical body.

The court also held that Perkins’s reliance on the Treaty of Algiers, the Treaty of Marrakech, the Treaty of Tripoli, and the Treaty of Tunis for claims arising in the United States was frivolous. The court therefore dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), which requires dismissal of a frivolous complaint filed without the filing fee.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous. It declined to grant leave to amend because it concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. It directed the clerk to enter judgment.