Brown v. Burmania

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJune 21, 2022
DocketCivil Action No. 2022-1708
StatusPublished

This text of Brown v. Burmania (Brown v. Burmania) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brown v. Burmania, (D.D.C. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LEWIS ROSS BROWN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 22-1708 (UNA) ) TESSA L. BURMANIA et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lewis Ross Brown, a former employee of the Environmental Protection Agency, alleges

that defendants “blacklisted [him] from employment within the Federal Government after [he]

was removed for exercising [his] right to file an EEO Complaint and to report [defendants’]

misconduct . . . to the Agency OIG” and others. Compl. at 3, Dkt. 1. He purports to bring this

action under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. See id. His claim fails because the

Declaration does not provide a private right of action. See Sosa v. Alvarez–Machain, 542 U.S.

692, 734 (2004) (“[T]he Declaration does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of

international law.”); Vizi v. Outback Steakhouse, 672 F. App’x 168, 171 n.1 (3d Cir. 2016) (per

curiam) (finding that “Universal Declaration of Human Rights . . . is a nonbinding declaration

that provides no private rights of action”); Konar v. Illinois, 327 F. App’x 638, 640 (7th Cir.

2009) (finding that appellant “cannot state a claim under the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights or the Vienna Declaration because both are non-binding declarations that provide no

private rights of action”); Perry v. Frederick, No. 22-CV-1973, 2022 WL 1810713, at *1 n.3

(E.D. Pa. June 2, 2022) (recognizing Third Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Chatman, 351 F.

App’x 740, 741 (3d Cir. 2009), that “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a non-

binding declaration that provides no private rights of action”).

1 The Court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and, for the

reasons stated above, dismiss the complaint and this civil action. An Order is issued separately.

DATE: June 21, 2022 /s/ DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
542 U.S. 692 (Supreme Court, 2004)
Patricia Vizi v. Outback Steakhouse
672 F. App'x 168 (Third Circuit, 2016)
Konar v. Illinois
327 F. App'x 638 (Seventh Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Chatman
351 F. App'x 740 (Third Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brown v. Burmania, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-burmania-dcd-2022.