Ronet v. United States

D. Arizona

Ronet v. United States

DecidedSeptember 11, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-01664

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Ronet v. United States, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Jean-Pierre Ronet, No. CV-24-01664-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 United States of America, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Jean-Pierre Ronet filed a complaint against the United States of America, 16 the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, and “the Ratings Board.” Ronet also 17 filed an application for leave to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. (Doc. 2.) That 18 application is granted. Having granted that application, the court can assess whether 19 Ronet’s complaint states any claims on which he might be able to obtain relief. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(1). It does not. 21 The court can identify three claims in Ronet’s complaint. Those claims are not 22 viable. First, Ronet “seeks criminal charges against Defendants.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) Only the 23 government can pursue the criminal charges Ronet has in mind. See Abcarian v. Levine, 24 972 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining criminal statutes rarely create private 25 rights of action). Second, Ronet claims defendants have violated the “Universal 26 Declaration of Human Rights.” The provisions of that document cannot be enforced 27 through a lawsuit in federal court. See Sosa v. Alvarez–Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734 (2004). 28 And third, Ronet requests some assistance with obtaining benefits from the Veterans || Administration. (Doc. | at 3.) This court is “disqualified from hearing veterans’ suits 2|| concerning their benefits.” Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1022- 23 (9th Cir. 2012). 4 Ronet’s complaint does not state any claims on which relief might be granted and it 5 || would not be possible to amend any of these claims such that they would be viable. 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice and close this case. 12 Dated this 11th day of September, 2024. 13 14 “/ □□ Vo A. \ G. / .

Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

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

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Jean-Pierre Ronet, No. CV-24-01664-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 United States of America, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Jean-Pierre Ronet filed a complaint against the United States of America, 16 the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, and “the Ratings Board.” Ronet also 17 filed an application for leave to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. (Doc. 2.) That 18 application is granted. Having granted that application, the court can assess whether 19 Ronet’s complaint states any claims on which he might be able to obtain relief. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(1). It does not. 21 The court can identify three claims in Ronet’s complaint. Those claims are not 22 viable. First, Ronet “seeks criminal charges against Defendants.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) Only the 23 government can pursue the criminal charges Ronet has in mind. See Abcarian v. Levine, 24 972 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining criminal statutes rarely create private 25 rights of action). Second, Ronet claims defendants have violated the “Universal 26 Declaration of Human Rights.” The provisions of that document cannot be enforced 27 through a lawsuit in federal court. See Sosa v. Alvarez–Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734 (2004). 28 And third, Ronet requests some assistance with obtaining benefits from the Veterans || Administration. (Doc. | at 3.) This court is “disqualified from hearing veterans’ suits 2|| concerning their benefits.” Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1022- 23 (9th Cir. 2012). 4 Ronet’s complaint does not state any claims on which relief might be granted and it 5 || would not be possible to amend any of these claims such that they would be viable. 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice and close this case. 12 Dated this 11th day of September, 2024. 13 14 “/ □□ Vo A. \ G. / .

Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ronet v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronet-v-united-states-azd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack