(PC) Saintillus v. U.S. Supreme Court

Opinion

CHALONER SAINTILLUS, No. 2:23-cv-0776 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and he has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF Nos. 1, 2. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. In addition, it will be recommended that this matter be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 2. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light //// most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Plaintiff names the United States Supreme Court, the United States Congress, the United States of America, the Internal Revenue Service, and Social Security Commissioners as defendants. ECF No. 1 at 1. He alleges violations of his rights under the Thirteenth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242.1 He states that he has been harmed because he has been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, a corporation, and he has been illegally incarcerated in several institutions throughout the United States. ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff considers the United States of America to be a “fictitious foreign state.” Id. at 8. He asks the court to recognize the “Moorish- American Nation” as “a pure and clean nation” id. at 8, and he seeks an injunction recognizing his “rightful proper nationality,” id. at 6. Plaintiff also seeks damages in the amount of ten million dollars. Id. The attachments to the complaint, totaling over 70 pages, are documents related to Moorish America and the Moorish Haitian-American Nation. Id. at 11-82. Some of these documents are in the form of legal and governmental documents, others appear to be religious. Id. A. Federal Actors and Entities Cannot Be Sued Under Section 1983, and No Bivens Action is Available 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates civil liability for individuals and entities who violate a plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights “under color of State law.” The only proper defendants in a Section

1 18 U.S.C. § 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights – permits the assessment of fines against two or more persons who conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any person in any state in the free exercise of any right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law – permits the assessment of fines against or the imprisonment of individuals who willfully subject any person to the deprivation of rights secured under the Constitution or laws of the United States or to different punishments on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his color or race than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens. 1983 lawsuit are state and local officials and municipal entities. Federal officials and entities cannot be sued under the statute. See Stonecipher v. Bray, 653 F.2d 398, 401 (9th Cir. 1981) (federal agency cannot be sued under § 1983 because its agents perform no acts under color of state law). Because the complaint names only federal officials and entities as defendants, plaintiff fails to state any claim under Section 1983. This is not a defect that can be cured by amendment. Bivens actions,2 the federal corollary to Section 1983, do not extend to alleged violations of the Thirteenth Amendment. See Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 131, 135 (2017) (Bivens has been extended beyond the search and seizure context only to gender discrimination and Eighth Amendment medical care claims, and further extensions are disfavored). Accordingly, the complaint cannot be construed as presenting a putative Bivens claim. B. The Named Defendants are Entitled to Sovereign Immunity “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). The federal government cannot be sued without its consent. United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 289 (2009); see also Dolan v. United States Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481, 484 (2006). The complaint identifies no statutory cause of action in which Congress has waived sovereign immunity on behalf of the United States. Accordingly, all named defendants are absolutely immune from suit. C. Alleged Violations of Criminal Statutes Cannot Support Civil Liability Plaintiff’s first cause of action appears to allege “denationalization” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. ECF No. 1 at 3. Title 18 of the United States Code is the Criminal Code. “Criminal proceedings, unlike private civil proceedings, are public acts initiated and controlled by the Executive Branch.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 718 (1997). Accordingly, Title 18 does not establish any private right of action and cannot support a civil lawsuit. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (criminal provisions provide no basis for civil liability). ////

2 Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognizing cause of action against federal officials for violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizures). D. Plaintiff’s Allegations Do Not Support Any Cognizable Grounds for Relief The rhetoric of the complaint and its attachments, regarding the invalidity of the federal government and its actions and the Moorish Nation’s claim of sovereignty, fail to state any cognizable legal claim or to suggest any valid legal theory. No facts are presented which could support a plausible claim for relief. Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. E. Leave to Amend Would Be Inappropriate A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). Leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be futile. Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013); Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010). That is plainly the case here. The complaint and its attachments provide no basis for this court’s jurisdiction, and no indication that facts exist which would state a cognizable claim for relief. V. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY OF THIS ORDER FOR A PRO SE LITIGANT The magistrate judge is recommending that this case be dismissed, for several reasons. You cannot sue federal defendants under Section 1983, because Section 1983 only applies to state (not federal) actors. Also, federal government entities are immune from suit unless a particular law authorizing suit has been passed by Congress. No such law supports a suit in your case. You cannot sue anyone for violating provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code, because only federal prosecutors can enforce Title 18. Your allegations regarding your Moorish identity and the sovereignty of the Moorish Nation do not present a legally valid basis for a lawsuit. You will have the opportunity to object in writing to this recommendation before a district judge makes the final decision. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this action; //// ] 2. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; and, 3. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED with prejudice. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: May 3, 2023 ~ Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE