Faison v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 21, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-0278
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BURUDI J. FAISON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 26-00278 (UNA) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

Memorandum Opinion

This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

and pro se complaint. ECF Nos. 1–2. The court grants the application and dismisses the complaint

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The plaintiff attempts to bring this action on behalf of “The People of the Sovereign States

of the United States of America.” ECF No. 1 at 5. Generally, the plaintiff objects to the federal

government’s deployment of federal agents to the states for immigration enforcement. See

generally id. at 2–15. Among other relief, the plaintiff demands an injunction barring “Defendants’

deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and any other federal agency into the

jurisdiction of the States.” Id. at 23.

“Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power to deciding ‘Cases’ and

‘Controversies.’” In re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d 756, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “One element of

the case-or-controversy requirement is that plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to

sue.” Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, 968 F.3d 755, 762 (D.C.

Cir. 2020) (citations and quotation marks omitted). A party has standing to sue if they have “(1)

suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, 1 and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. at 763 (quoting Spokeo,

Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016)).

The court dismisses the complaint for two reasons. First, the plaintiff does not appear to

be a lawyer, and he cannot represent the interests of any other individual in federal court. See

United States ex rel. Feliciano v. Ardoin, 127 F.4th 382, 383 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (per curiam) (“While

parties may conduct their own cases pro se, a non-attorney cannot appear pro se and seek to

represent others.” (cleaned up)). Second, the plaintiff does not allege that he has sustained, or is

likely to sustain, an injury attributable to the defendants’ actions or omissions, without which the

plaintiff lacks standing to sue. Therefore, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and will

dismiss the complaint. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

/s/ AMIR H. ALI United States District Judge DATE: April 21, 2026