Thomas v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge William M Nickerson on 3/7/12. (jmk, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 3/07/12)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

HILTON THOMAS, # 33062-037

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

*

Defendant

Civil Action No. WMN-12-453

*
***
MEMORANDUM

Hilton Thomas, a federal inmate, brings this action for declaratory judgment under 28
U.S.C. § 2201 in which he asks this Court inter alia to declare: 1) constitutional rights are
superior to statutory rights; 2) any waiver of an “unalienable constitutional right by an accused
must appear on the record of proceedings” to be of legal force and effect; 3) the constitution of
the United States is the superior law of the land; 4) rights are classified in constitutional law as
natural, civil, and political; 5) no waiver of Thomas’ “First Amendment constitutional rights for
redress Redress [sic] of Grievance appears upon the record;” and 6) the maxim of the Court of
the United States is “first, do no harm.” ECF No. 1. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis which will be granted for the limited purpose of preliminary review.
The Complaint will be dismissed for failure lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(h) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
I.

DISCUSSION
The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant, As such, this Court is

required to hold his pleadings to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Liberal construction does not mean

that it can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a federal claim, or
assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. See Weller v.
Department of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “constrained to exercise only the
authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution and affirmatively granted by federal
statute.” In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir.1998). There is no presumption
of jurisdiction, see Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir.1999) (citing
Lehigh Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Kelly, 160 U.S. 337 (1895)), and a federal court is required to
determine if a valid basis for its jurisdiction exists, “and to dismiss the action if no such ground
appears.” Bulldog Trucking, 147 F.3d at 352; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h) (3).
Further, federal courts hear only “cases” and “controversies.” U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2.
The United States Constitution prohibits federal courts from issuing advisory opinions. For a
federal district court to have jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment two conditions must be
satisfied. There must be a “case or controversy” and a “prudential” inquiry by the trial court that
declaratory relief is appropriate. See White v. National Union Fire Insurance Company, 913 F.2d
165, 167 (4th Cir.1990). To satisfy Article III's case-or-controversy requirement, “the question in
each case is whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a
substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy
and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.’ ” Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech,
Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007) (quoting Maryland Casualty Company v. Pacific Coal & Oil
Company, 312 U.S. 270 (1941)).
In this case, Thomas asks for an advisory opinion and provides no facts to show any
controversy or case in which he is presently involved or has adverse legal interests. He provides

2

no grounds for declaratory relief. To the extent Thomas intends to challenge his incarceration or
the denial of his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct,1 he cannot circumvent 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(h), which requires a petitioner to obtain pre-filing authorization from a three-judge panel
of the Court of Appeals before bringing a second or successive § 2255 proceeding in federal
district court. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by a separate order
to follow.
/s/
03/07/2012
Date

____________________________________
William M. Nickerson.
Senior United States District Judge

1

Thomas mentions ECF No. 349, which this Court presumes is a reference to his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or
Correct in Civil Action No. WMN-11-1932 (D. Md). This Court dismissed that case without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction after finding Thomas had presented no evidence of obtaining pre-filing authorization to bring a
successive § 2255 action. ECF Nos. 350 and 351. Thomas appealed the dismissal, and the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a Certificate of Appealability on December 23, 2011.

3