(PC) Saintillus v. U.S. Supreme Court et al, No. 2:2023cv00776 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 05/03/2023 GRANTING the 2 Motion to Proceed IFP and DIRECTING the Clerk to randomly assign a district judge to this action. Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Muelle r and Magistrate Judge Allison Claire assigned for all further proceedings. New Case Number: 2:23-cv-0776 KJN AC (PC). It is RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed with prejudice. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Spichka, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Saintillus v. U.S. Supreme Court et al Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHALONER SAINTILLUS, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:23-cv-0776 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983, and he has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915. ECF Nos. 1, 2. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 22 23 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. 24 I. 25 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 26 1915(a). ECF No. 2. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 27 28 IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 2 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 3 forward it to the Clerk of Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of 4 twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 5 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of Court each time the 6 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 7 1915(b)(2). 8 II. 9 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a SCREENING REQUIREMENT 10 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 11 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 12 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 13 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 14 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 15 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 16 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 17 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 18 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 19 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 20 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 21 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 22 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 23 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 24 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 25 Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 26 this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. 27 Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 28 //// 2 1 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 2 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 3 III. THE COMPLAINT 4 Plaintiff names the United States Supreme Court, the United States Congress, the United 5 States of America, the Internal Revenue Service, and Social Security Commissioners as 6 defendants. ECF No. 1 at 1. He alleges violations of his rights under the Thirteenth Amendment 7 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242.1 He states that he has been harmed because he has been subject to the 8 jurisdiction of the United States, a corporation, and he has been illegally incarcerated in several 9 institutions throughout the United States. ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff considers the United States of 10 America to be a “fictitious foreign state.” Id. at 8. He asks the court to recognize the “Moorish- 11 American Nation” as “a pure and clean nation” id. at 8, and he seeks an injunction recognizing his 12 “rightful proper nationality,” id. at 6. Plaintiff also seeks damages in the amount of ten million 13 dollars. Id. 14 The attachments to the complaint, totaling over 70 pages, are documents related to 15 Moorish America and the Moorish Haitian-American Nation. Id. at 11-82. Some of these 16 documents are in the form of legal and governmental documents, others appear to be religious. 17 Id. 18 IV. DISCUSSION 19 A. Federal Actors and Entities Cannot Be Sued Under Section 1983, and No Bivens 20 Action is Available 21 22 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 23 24 25 26 27 28 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. 3 1 1983 lawsuit are state and local officials and municipal entities. Federal officials and entities 2 cannot be sued under the statute. See Stonecipher v. Bray, 653 F.2d 398, 401 (9th Cir. 1981) 3 (federal agency cannot be sued under § 1983 because its agents perform no acts under color of 4 state law). Because the complaint names only federal officials and entities as defendants, plaintiff 5 fails to state any claim under Section 1983. This is not a defect that can be cured by amendment. 6 Bivens actions,2 the federal corollary to Section 1983, do not extend to alleged violations 7 of the Thirteenth Amendment. See Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 131, 135 (2017) (Bivens has 8 been extended beyond the search and seizure context only to gender discrimination and Eighth 9 Amendment medical care claims, and further extensions are disfavored). Accordingly, the 10 complaint cannot be construed as presenting a putative Bivens claim. 11 B. The Named Defendants are Entitled to Sovereign Immunity 12 “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies 13 from suit.” F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). The federal government cannot be sued 14 without its consent. United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 289 (2009); see also Dolan v. 15 United States Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481, 484 (2006). The complaint identifies no statutory 16 cause of action in which Congress has waived sovereign immunity on behalf of the United States. 17 Accordingly, all named defendants are absolutely immune from suit. 18 C. Alleged Violations of Criminal Statutes Cannot Support Civil Liability 19 Plaintiff’s first cause of action appears to allege “denationalization” in violation of 18 20 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. ECF No. 1 at 3. Title 18 of the United States Code is the Criminal Code. 21 “Criminal proceedings, unlike private civil proceedings, are public acts initiated and controlled by 22 the Executive Branch.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 718 (1997). Accordingly, Title 18 does 23 not establish any private right of action and cannot support a civil lawsuit. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 24 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (criminal provisions provide no basis for civil liability). 25 //// 26 27 28 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). 4 1 D. Plaintiff’s Allegations Do Not Support Any Cognizable Grounds for Relief 2 The rhetoric of the complaint and its attachments, regarding the invalidity of the federal 3 government and its actions and the Moorish Nation’s claim of sovereignty, fail to state any 4 cognizable legal claim or to suggest any valid legal theory. No facts are presented which could 5 support a plausible claim for relief. Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed. See 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. 7 E. Leave to Amend Would Be Inappropriate 8 A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 9 opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. See 10 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). Leave to amend may be denied where 11 amendment would be futile. Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th 12 Cir. 2013); Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010). That is plainly the 13 case here. The complaint and its attachments provide no basis for this court’s jurisdiction, and no 14 indication that facts exist which would state a cognizable claim for relief. 15 V. 16 The magistrate judge is recommending that this case be dismissed, for several reasons. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY OF THIS ORDER FOR A PRO SE LITIGANT 17 You cannot sue federal defendants under Section 1983, because Section 1983 only applies to state 18 (not federal) actors. Also, federal government entities are immune from suit unless a particular 19 law authorizing suit has been passed by Congress. No such law supports a suit in your case. You 20 cannot sue anyone for violating provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code, because only 21 federal prosecutors can enforce Title 18. Your allegations regarding your Moorish identity and 22 the sovereignty of the Moorish Nation do not present a legally valid basis for a lawsuit. 23 24 You will have the opportunity to object in writing to this recommendation before a district judge makes the final decision. 25 CONCLUSION 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this action; 28 //// 5 1 2 3 2. Plaintiff’s 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 4 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 6 Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 7 herewith. 8 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED with prejudice. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 11 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 12 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 13 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 14 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 15 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 DATED: May 3, 2023 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
