Johnston v. Alabama

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: June 30, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-05059
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE 2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jun 30, 2025 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 JACOB JOHNSTON, NO: 4:25-CV-05059-RLP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 9 v.

10 GOVERNMENT OF ALABAMA, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 Plaintiff Jacob Johnston, an individual incarcerated at the Washington State 14 Penitentiary, brings this pro se civil action against the Governments of each State 15 of the United States. ECF No. 1. By separate Order the Court granted Plaintiff 16 leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Defendants have not been served. 17 Plaintiff also filed a Motion/Request Appointed Counsel, ECF No. 4, a 18 Motion to Produce Documents, ECF No. 5, a Motion to Amend/Correct 19 Complaint, ECF No. 8 and a Motion to Fix Correction on Former Relief Page, ECF 20 No. 10. Plaintiff asks to replace “page 6” of his complaint, ECF No. 1 at 4, to 1 modify his first count. ECF No. 8 at 2. The Court notes this new “page 6” simply 2 fills in the word “Mullote1” in three spaces previously left blank on the complaint

3 form. In his request to amend the relief section, Plaintiff asks to change the damage 4 amount from $50,000,000.00 from each State to $1,000,000,000.00. ECF No. 10-1. 5 Plaintiff is advised that if he wishes to change any of the information in a

6 complaint, he must file an amended complaint which functions as a complete 7 substitute for, and not a mere supplement, to the present complaint. However, for 8 the reasons set forth below, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss this action for 9 lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, amendment would be futile.

10 In his first count, Plaintiff asserts a belief that the “Malltoe population of the 11 united States are subjective to Disharmony, Discrimination, Lack of Dignitary, less 12 Dexterity, Respect, Colonialism and Colonialists, Collegium, Patriarchy, and

13 Patriotic Comfort. Which leads to less, Cohort’s, Respect, advantage’s, Social an 14 Sexual also Romanticized Relationships, Collegium, Psych.Stability, femininilty 15 and Masculinity Between Sex’s, less Psychosexual Desire, Structure, wanting 16 Between and amongst opposite- Malltoe Sex’s. These Above Discreet list Provides

18 1 Plaintiff repeatedly references the “Malltoe” or “Mullote” race throughout the complaint. It appears Plaintiff means “Mulatto”: “a person of mixed Caucasian 19 and Negro ancestry.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1484 (1993). 20 1 The - Malltoe Race to Be easly admixed with other Races, tooken Advantage of, 2 Outwited Outguessed, psyched, Criminalized Against, Murdered, Raped or Sexily

3 Abused By Races Other Then – Malltoe as well as other Discriminate [. . . .]” ECF 4 No. 1 at 4 (as written in original). 5 In addition to the monetary damages stated above, Plaintiff requests a

6 “national holiday recinizing Malltoe and other mixed raced persons for there 7 accomplishment to heighten self steam of Malltoe race.” ECF No. 1 at 8 (as written 8 in original). He also wants school children to be provided “in Depth Liticher 9 Discribing Malltoe and mixed person accomplishment.” Id. (as written in original).

10 In addition, he asks to “make Malltoe own race apart from what thay are mixed 11 with do to effects of Suppression from races not Malltoe.” Id. (as written in 12 original).

13 Plaintiff provides no basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over his 14 claims. Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal 15 courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “To establish 16 Article III standing, a plaintiff must show (1) an injury in fact, (2) a sufficient

17 causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) a 18 likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Susan B. 19 Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 157–58 (2014).

20 An injury-in-fact must be “concrete and particularized and actual or 1 imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. at 158. A “concrete injury” is 2 something more than a person's “concern” about an issue of public policy or

3 “desire” to “vindicate” a law or the “rights of other[s].” Diamond v. Charles, 476 4 U.S. 54, 65–67 (1986) (cleaned up). 5 A federal court will not adjudicate abstract disputes or issue advisory

6 opinions. See TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 423–24 (2021). Plaintiff 7 has presented no constitutional or statutory authority, and this Court has found 8 none, which requires States to educate their populations regarding particular issues. 9 He has failed to show that he has suffered a concrete injury.

10 Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment bars lawsuits in federal court against 11 a state, its agencies, and its state officers in their official capacity. Porter v. Jones, 12 319 F.3d 483, 491 (9th Cir. 2003). “The Judicial power of the United States shall

13 not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted 14 against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or 15 Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. art. XI. 16 Courts recognize three exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity: (1)

17 congressional abrogation, (2) waiver by the state consenting to suit in federal court, 18 and (3) under the Ex parte Young doctrine, suits seeking prospective injunctive 19 relief against state officials for ongoing violations of federal law. See Micomonaco

20 v. State of Wash., 45 F.3d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 1995); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. 1|| Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 73 (1996). None of these exceptions apply to Plaintiff's 2 || complaint. He does not identify a violation of a constitutional right. 3 Plaintiff states he has grown concerned after regularly studying history and 4|| seeks the recognition of a separate race. ECF No. | at 7. This is not relief a federal 5|| district court can grant him. In the absence of a continuing violation of federal law by a person amenable to suit, the Court dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 9 1. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of 10|| subject matter jurisdiction. 11 2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 12 3. The Court certifies any appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in 13 || good faith. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order, 15 || enter judgment, provide copies to Plaintiff at his last known address and CLOSE the file. 17 DATED June 30, 2025. 18 LLC ss REBECCA L. PENNELL 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE