UNITSEDT ATDEISS TRCIOCUTR T DISTROIFCN TE WJ ERSEY
KINCGL IFFOJFREFDE RSON, Plaintiff, CiAvcitli Noo2n.3 -3(9RK8)(6 T JB) v. MEMORANDOURMD ER UNITESDT ATFEESD ERAL GOVERNMEeNatTl ,. , Defendants. KIRSCH, JDuidsgter ict THSIM ATTREc moe bsefotrheCe o tu urpopnrs oeP laiKnnitgiC ifflf fo Jredrsffnoe's
("Plaiapnptliifctfao'pt )rcie ooe indf no rpmaau p(eI"rFiP Es,CF " No1.-3 )t,oe gthweirth hi s Comaipnt,l( "Co mp,lE".C F No1.)a g,a iDnesfetn dUanntistS etdaF teeedrsGa olvrnm eenUt.;S . Fedrea RelesrvSesyt eUm.;SD .e parotfTm eresanrutya ;sw elalso fficeagresn,at nsed,mp loyees (colletceh"t Dievfeenldy"a, )Fn .ottrhs ree a seoxnpsl abeilnoetwdha, epp lictaopto riceoenId F P isG RANTEanD dt,eh C omlipatnis D ISMISwSihEt rDep jdcuie. Unde2r8 U .S§.1 C9.51 a,p laimnat pyirffo c eiendfpoarumpawe ihrtoipusyat i nafig ln ig feeT .heC ouerntg aiganetw so -satneaplw yhsecinos n sig IdFePar pipnlic"Faristtith,oeC n uostr : deterwmhientethshpe elr a iinestl iiffgt iopb rloecu ened2de8 Ur . S§.1 C9.1 5.(.a.S).e cotnhde, Coudrett erwmhientethsheC ero mplsahionbuteld di smiassfrs ievdo olrfoo rufa si ltuosr tea at e clauipmow nh ircehl miaeybf eg ranatsre edq,u biy2r 8eU d. S.§1C 9.1 5(Aer)c.vh"M.i e er cer
CntyC.o urthNoo2u.3s -e3,25 0523W3,L 5 2078a3t*3 2(, .D N.AJu.g1 .42 ,0 2(3c)i Rtoimnag n vJ.eff9e0sF4,2. d 1 9129,n4 1. ( 3Cdi 1r9.9 0T)hI)eF. sP t arteuqtueti hraape tls a idnetmioffn strate financial need through the submission of a complete financial affidavit. See Atl. Cty. Cent. Mun. Court Inc. v. Bey, No. 24-0105, 2024 WL 1256450, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2024) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915¢(a)). Here, Plaintiff sufficiently completed the Long Form Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (See IFP.) Plaintiff lists a total monthly income of $2,500 from unemployment and $2,745 in monthly expenses for rent, utilities, food, clothing, laundry, medical expenses, transportation, insurance, and recreation. (See id at 2, 4, 5.) The application also indicates no employment in the last two years, no motor vehicles, no assets in any bank or financial institution, and no debts. (/d. at 2-3.) Plaintiff also lists two individuals relying on him for support. at 3.) From this, the Court finds that Plaintiff has pled his circumstances regarding his ability to pay with sufficient particularity and GRANTS Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application. This case is one of a myriad of lawsuits the Plaintiff has filed in this District since 2018.! The subject lawsuit bears a purported seal of the “The Third Temple English Church of England” with a title of “The Crown Writ Quo Warranto.” (Compl. at 1.) The Complaint asserts claims against the United States seeking to compel the federal government to adopt the “Gold Standard as established by Article 1 section 10 Contract clause.” (See generally id.) The United States, however, is protected from suit under the doctrine of absolute sovereign immunity, See Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 687 (1949) (sovereign immunity bars suit against the United States either for damages or for injunctive relief requiring government action);
' See El Bey v. State, No. 18-09170; El Bey v. State, No. 18-09171; El Bey v. State, No. 18-09172; El Bey v. Sheridan, No. 18-14976; El Bey v. Clark, No. 18-15377; Jefferson El Bey V. Credit Acceptance Corporation, et al., No. 19-10629; Jefferson El Bey v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, et al., No. 19-10726; Jefferson v. Bank of America, et al., No. 22-04676; Jefferson v. v. LP Hommes LLC, et al., No. 22-05883; Jefferson v. State, No. 22-06633; Jefferson y. City of New Brunswick, et al., No. 23-01898; Jefferson vy. Christopher, et al., No, 23-03493; Jefferson v. Bank of America N.A. et al., No. 23-03919; Jefferson v. Bucca, No. 23-21076; Jefferson v. Wengui, No. 23-23363.
see also Clark v. Sec’y of United States Navy, 102 F.4th 658, 661 (3d Cir. 2024); see also Scott □□ Manenti, No. 15-7213, 2016 WL 80640, at *1 n. 2 (D.N.J. Jan. 7, 2016). “Without a waiver of sovereign immunity, a court is without subject matter jurisdiction over claims against federal agencies or officials in their official capacities.” Treasurer of N.J. v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 684 F.3d 382, 395 (3d Cir. 2012). “It is a fundamental principle of sovereign immunity that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over suits against the United States unless Congress, via a statute, expressly and unequivocally waives the United States’ immunity to suit.’” United States v. Craig, 694 F.3d 509, 511 (3d Cir. 2012), as modified (Oct. 5, 2012) (quoting U.S. v. Bein, 214 F.3d 408, 412 (3d Cir. 2000)); see also Bah v. United States, 91 F.4th 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2024) (““Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.’” (quoting EDLC. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994)). The Complaint makes fleeting references to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and its “limited waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States, permitting citizens to pursue some tort claims against the federal government.” (See Compl. {§ 1, 30, 43.) Indeed, “[t]he United States has waived its sovereign immunity in prescribed circumstances in accordance with the FTCA.” See Dalai v. Molinelli, No. 20-1434, 2021 WL 1208901, at *9 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2021) (citing Santos v. United States, 559 F.3d 189, 193 (3d Cir. 2009)). To qualify for jurisdiction under the FTCA, the suit must be: [1] against the United States, [2] for money damages, . . . [3] for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death [4] caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government [5] while acting within the scope of his office or employment, [6] under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. FDIC, 510 US. at 477 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1)) (listing six requirements) (alterations in original). To be sure, those prerequisites are not met here. There is no “injury of loss of property,
orp ersionnjaoulrdr eya ntohar"n "yc ircumwshteatrnheUce ne istS etdai tafep sr,i vpaetres on,
woubleld i abtlhece l taoii mnaa cncto rwdiattnhhcl eea o wft hpel awchee trheae co tro mission occurarleldei"gtn eh Cdeo mplTahiunwsti,.t hqouuatl ifofyrti hnwega iovfse orv eriemimgunn ity undtehFreT CAD,e fendaarnietm sm ufrnoemt hciisvs iuli t. Beyotnhbdel ajtuarnits ddiecfetcPitlosan,ia nlct liaffismc sl eafrarirevl oyl Hoesu ese.k s "tcoo mpceolm pltiota hnGceoe lS dt andbaybr rdi"n cgoiunungnt dste hrCe o ntrCalcatuossf e thUe.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITSEDT ATDEISS TRCIOCUTR T DISTROIFCN TE WJ ERSEY
KINCGL IFFOJFREFDE RSON, Plaintiff, CiAvcitli Noo2n.3 -3(9RK8)(6 T JB) v. MEMORANDOURMD ER UNITESDT ATFEESD ERAL GOVERNMEeNatTl ,. , Defendants. KIRSCH, JDuidsgter ict THSIM ATTREc moe bsefotrheCe o tu urpopnrs oeP laiKnnitgiC ifflf fo Jredrsffnoe's
("Plaiapnptliifctfao'pt )rcie ooe indf no rpmaau p(eI"rFiP Es,CF " No1.-3 )t,oe gthweirth hi s Comaipnt,l( "Co mp,lE".C F No1.)a g,a iDnesfetn dUanntistS etdaF teeedrsGa olvrnm eenUt.;S . Fedrea RelesrvSesyt eUm.;SD .e parotfTm eresanrutya ;sw elalso fficeagresn,at nsed,mp loyees (colletceh"t Dievfeenldy"a, )Fn .ottrhs ree a seoxnpsl abeilnoetwdha, epp lictaopto riceoenId F P isG RANTEanD dt,eh C omlipatnis D ISMISwSihEt rDep jdcuie. Unde2r8 U .S§.1 C9.51 a,p laimnat pyirffo c eiendfpoarumpawe ihrtoipusyat i nafig ln ig feeT .heC ouerntg aiganetw so -satneaplw yhsecinos n sig IdFePar pipnlic"Faristtith,oeC n uostr : deterwmhientethshpe elr a iinestl iiffgt iopb rloecu ened2de8 Ur . S§.1 C9.1 5.(.a.S).e cotnhde, Coudrett erwmhientethsheC ero mplsahionbuteld di smiassfrs ievdo olrfoo rufa si ltuosr tea at e clauipmow nh ircehl miaeybf eg ranatsre edq,u biy2r 8eU d. S.§1C 9.1 5(Aer)c.vh"M.i e er cer
CntyC.o urthNoo2u.3s -e3,25 0523W3,L 5 2078a3t*3 2(, .D N.AJu.g1 .42 ,0 2(3c)i Rtoimnag n vJ.eff9e0sF4,2. d 1 9129,n4 1. ( 3Cdi 1r9.9 0T)hI)eF. sP t arteuqtueti hraape tls a idnetmioffn strate financial need through the submission of a complete financial affidavit. See Atl. Cty. Cent. Mun. Court Inc. v. Bey, No. 24-0105, 2024 WL 1256450, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2024) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915¢(a)). Here, Plaintiff sufficiently completed the Long Form Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (See IFP.) Plaintiff lists a total monthly income of $2,500 from unemployment and $2,745 in monthly expenses for rent, utilities, food, clothing, laundry, medical expenses, transportation, insurance, and recreation. (See id at 2, 4, 5.) The application also indicates no employment in the last two years, no motor vehicles, no assets in any bank or financial institution, and no debts. (/d. at 2-3.) Plaintiff also lists two individuals relying on him for support. at 3.) From this, the Court finds that Plaintiff has pled his circumstances regarding his ability to pay with sufficient particularity and GRANTS Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application. This case is one of a myriad of lawsuits the Plaintiff has filed in this District since 2018.! The subject lawsuit bears a purported seal of the “The Third Temple English Church of England” with a title of “The Crown Writ Quo Warranto.” (Compl. at 1.) The Complaint asserts claims against the United States seeking to compel the federal government to adopt the “Gold Standard as established by Article 1 section 10 Contract clause.” (See generally id.) The United States, however, is protected from suit under the doctrine of absolute sovereign immunity, See Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 687 (1949) (sovereign immunity bars suit against the United States either for damages or for injunctive relief requiring government action);
' See El Bey v. State, No. 18-09170; El Bey v. State, No. 18-09171; El Bey v. State, No. 18-09172; El Bey v. Sheridan, No. 18-14976; El Bey v. Clark, No. 18-15377; Jefferson El Bey V. Credit Acceptance Corporation, et al., No. 19-10629; Jefferson El Bey v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, et al., No. 19-10726; Jefferson v. Bank of America, et al., No. 22-04676; Jefferson v. v. LP Hommes LLC, et al., No. 22-05883; Jefferson v. State, No. 22-06633; Jefferson y. City of New Brunswick, et al., No. 23-01898; Jefferson vy. Christopher, et al., No, 23-03493; Jefferson v. Bank of America N.A. et al., No. 23-03919; Jefferson v. Bucca, No. 23-21076; Jefferson v. Wengui, No. 23-23363.
see also Clark v. Sec’y of United States Navy, 102 F.4th 658, 661 (3d Cir. 2024); see also Scott □□ Manenti, No. 15-7213, 2016 WL 80640, at *1 n. 2 (D.N.J. Jan. 7, 2016). “Without a waiver of sovereign immunity, a court is without subject matter jurisdiction over claims against federal agencies or officials in their official capacities.” Treasurer of N.J. v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 684 F.3d 382, 395 (3d Cir. 2012). “It is a fundamental principle of sovereign immunity that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over suits against the United States unless Congress, via a statute, expressly and unequivocally waives the United States’ immunity to suit.’” United States v. Craig, 694 F.3d 509, 511 (3d Cir. 2012), as modified (Oct. 5, 2012) (quoting U.S. v. Bein, 214 F.3d 408, 412 (3d Cir. 2000)); see also Bah v. United States, 91 F.4th 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2024) (““Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.’” (quoting EDLC. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994)). The Complaint makes fleeting references to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and its “limited waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States, permitting citizens to pursue some tort claims against the federal government.” (See Compl. {§ 1, 30, 43.) Indeed, “[t]he United States has waived its sovereign immunity in prescribed circumstances in accordance with the FTCA.” See Dalai v. Molinelli, No. 20-1434, 2021 WL 1208901, at *9 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2021) (citing Santos v. United States, 559 F.3d 189, 193 (3d Cir. 2009)). To qualify for jurisdiction under the FTCA, the suit must be: [1] against the United States, [2] for money damages, . . . [3] for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death [4] caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government [5] while acting within the scope of his office or employment, [6] under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. FDIC, 510 US. at 477 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1)) (listing six requirements) (alterations in original). To be sure, those prerequisites are not met here. There is no “injury of loss of property,
orp ersionnjaoulrdr eya ntohar"n "yc ircumwshteatrnheUce ne istS etdai tafep sr,i vpaetres on,
woubleld i abtlhece l taoii mnaa cncto rwdiattnhhcl eea o wft hpel awchee trheae co tro mission occurarleldei"gtn eh Cdeo mplTahiunwsti,.t hqouuatl ifofyrti hnwega iovfse orv eriemimgunn ity undtehFreT CAD,e fendaarnietm sm ufrnoemt hciisvs iuli t. Beyotnhbdel ajtuarnits ddiecfetcPitlosan,ia nlct liaffismc sl eafrarirevl oyl Hoesu ese.k s "tcoo mpceolm pltiota hnGceoe lS dt andbaybr rdi"n cgoiunungnt dste hrCe o ntrCalcatuossf e thUe. SC.on stiatrIut,t.1§i 0 ov;na ,r ious ACcutfrrrsoe mtn h1ce7y 0 0t'hJsea; Ty r eoaf1t 7y9 4; ancde rtaanitnis ttrauts(utCt oemsap.t1l 1..T )h eC ompleanicnotm paans" siensd isputabl meriltelgetashlse oMriyr.a"vr .cU nhiiSt teadEt xeesBc r.a nocfth hG eo vN'ot2.,3 -22607233, WL 8179a2t7* 52( ,3C di Nro.v 2.72 ,0 2(3q)u oDtoionlvge.W y e tz9e5Fl7., 33 d6 367,3 -(734d
Ci2r0.2 0P)l)a.ic natnincffoo tm ptehle oufgs oelo dnt hUe. Sg.o vernmeanntcd,o uhratvse consisrteejnestcultctyehh d e oars"i celse arly SfreRieav homlEaolvnu F. si .rF"sr ta nFkilni.n CorNpo.0.,9 -1026020WL29 , 3 8765a0t*6 7(, E .MDi.c Nho.v 1.7 2,0 0(9c)o llecting ca 2 rejescutcaihrn ggu ments). Fotrh erseea stohCneos m,p liaDsiI nStM ISWSIETDPH R EJUDICE. AccordIiTIn Sog nlt yh1,i6 ds a oyfD ecem2b0e2r4,, ORDEREthDPa lta inatpipflfit'copsa r toicoiennfe odr pmaau pieGsrRA iNsT EDa;n d iitfus r ther ORDERtEhDPa lta inCtoimfpfli'aDssiI nStM ISwSiEtDh praenijditu fus dr itchee;r
2A st hCiosm pliasci lnetafr rilvyo lporuosv,iP dlianiwgni ttliheff a tvoae m ehnidCs o mplwaoiunblted futSielGeer .ay svo.Mn ay vieSwt aHtoes p2.9F,3. 31d0 31,1 2-(133Cd i 2r0.0 (2")[ D]isomfi ssals frivoclloaudisom n sor te qulieratevoa e m ednudte ot hleo ntgr adoifdt einoyni ntgo a mleenadv eu nder Rul1e5 (wah)e anm endmiesin nte quoirtfu atbillee ."); Thereifosrd ei,s mitwshisiteshd Comp prejudice. ORDERED that Defendants shall not be served; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively CLOSE this case; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum Order on Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail.
Rosunr KIRSCH oN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE