Cooper v. United States of America

Filing 7

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding the Legal Sufficiency of Plaintiff's 1 Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/2/2013. Objections to F&R due by 9/6/2013. (Martinez, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
DERRICK WADDELL COOPER,
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT,
)
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )

1:13-cv-00487 AWI GSA
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING THE LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY OF PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT
(Document 1)

17
18

INTRODUCTION

19

Plaintiff Derrick Cooper (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis,

20

filed the instant complaint on April 4, 2013, against Defendants the United States of America, its

21

“Legislative Department,” and all Members of Congress (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1).

22

For the reasons detailed below, the Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed

23

without leave to amend.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
28

1

1

DISCUSSION

2

A.

3

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court must conduct an initial review of Plaintiff’s

Screening Standard

4

complaint for legal sufficiency. The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it

5

determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious;” “fails to state a claim upon which

6

relief may be granted;” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

7

relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If a complaint fails to state a valid claim, the Court may grant

8

leave to amend to the extent that the deficiencies are curable by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203

9

F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).

10

The Court reviews complaints for legal sufficiency in accordance with the plausibility

11

standard adopted by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) and Bell Atl.

12

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Under Iqbal and Twombly’s plausibility standard, a

13

complaint––when its well-pleaded allegations are taken as true––must contain sufficient facts to

14

“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly,

15

550 U.S. at 570.

16

The Court notes that the pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent

17

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th

18

Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal).

19

Accordingly, pro se pleadings are construed liberally, with plaintiffs afforded the benefit of any

20

doubt. Id.

21

B.

22

In general, the complaint, which is unintelligible in parts, alleges that Capitalism is a

Plaintiff’s Allegations

23

detrimental social and economic force, and Defendants should be enjoined to abolish and replace

24

it with a superior system. Plaintiff requests “permission to assist” Defendants “in overseeing the

25

development” of a “more perfect economic union,” and seeks declarative and injunctive relief to

26

achieve it, including, inter alia:

27
28

2

1

1.

2
3

A declarative judgment establishing that “Capitalism is a Detrimental Economic Enemy
to the people of America,” and should be abolished; and

2.

Injunctions requiring Defendants to take all “paper and coin currency . . . out of

4

circulation;” establish a “Unified Law of Ethics” for all Americans; create an economic

5

system that employs all Americans; set a uniform wage for all Americans; limit weekly

6

working hours to a range of fifteen to thirty-five hours; impose mandatory retirement for

7

all workers between fifty-five and sixty-five years of age; bring all businesses under the

8

“sole ownership of American Citizens;” establish mandatory educational courses for all

9

Americans; and institute free health care for all.

10

(Doc. 1).

11

C.

12

Plaintiff has brought this action against the United States, its “Legislative Department”

All Defendants are Immune from Suit

13

and Members of Congress. The Court presumes that by “Legislative Department,” Plaintiff

14

means Congress.

15

Sovereign immunity bars lawsuits against the United States unless Congress has

16

specifically waived that immunity. Jurisdiction over the United States lies only when both a

17

clear waiver of sovereign immunity exists and the claim at issue “fall[s] within the terms of the

18

waiver” United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472 (2003); see also

19

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983) (“It is axiomatic that the United States may

20

not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for

21

jurisdiction.”). Sovereign immunity also protects the United States Congress when it is sued as a

22

branch of the United States government. See, e.g., Keener v. Cong. of U. S., 467 F.2d 952, 953

23

(5th Cir. 1972); Lock v. United States 2003 WL 21152879 (D. Utah Mar. 27, 2003); Johnson v.

24

Congress, 1992 WL 6429 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 1992).

25
26

Individual Members of Congress, futhermore, are immune from suit under the Speech or
Debate Clause of the United States Constitution, for conduct that falls within the sphere of

27
28

3

1

legitimate legislative activity. U.S. Const., Art. I, § 6, cl. 1; also see, e.g., Doe v. McMillan, 412

2

U.S. 306, 311(1973) (the Speech or Debate Clause “protects Members [of Congress] against

3

prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process”). The Speech or

4

Debate Clause provides that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [Members of

5

Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 6, cl. 1. The Clause

6

aims to protect “the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual

7

legislators.” Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 501 (1975). The

8

Supreme Court has made clear in numerous cases that under the Clause, Members of Congress

9

have absolute immunity for all matters that fall within the “sphere of legitimate legislative

10

activity.” Gravel v. U.S., 408 U.S. 606, 625 (1972); Eastland, 421 U.S. at 501. Members of

11

Congress, therefore, are immunized from the claims alleged in the instant complaint, because

12

these claims concern Congress’ legislative functions.

13

In sum, since all Defendants in the instant action are immune from suit, and because the

14

instant complaint is legally frivolous, it must therefore be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §

15

1915(e)(2).1 Leave to amend the complaint should therefore not be granted as its deficiencies

16

cannot be cured by the allegation of additional facts.

17
18
19
20

RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Anthony W.

21

Ishii, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff may file

22

written objections with this Court within thirty (30) days of service of these findings and

23

recommendations. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's

24

Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

25
26
27
28

1

The complaint must also be dismissed because “no cause of action lies to compel Congress to exercise its
discretion to legislate on a purely political question.” Keener v. Cong. of U. S., 467 F.2d 952, 953 (5th Cir. 1972).

4

1

specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the District Court's forthcoming order.

2

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:
6i0kij

August 2, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5