Ward v. Biden et al

Filing 4

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but for the reasons stated in the attached, the complaint is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment, close this case, and mail a copy of the attached Memorandum and Order to Plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Nina R. Morrison on 3/26/2024. (AD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Kareem Ward,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff,

No. 23-cv-8792 (NRM) (LB)

v.
Joe Biden, Grand Lodge of Free and
Accepted Mason, Saucon Lodge, NSA
Paul M. Nakasone, CIA William J.
Burns,
Defendants.

NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Kareem Ward filed this pro se complaint on November 28, 2023.
Compl., ECF No. 1. The Court grants Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF No. 2, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). For the reasons that follow,
the action is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s complaint appears to allege that while residing in Coopersburg,
Pennsylvania, Plaintiff declined an invitation to join the Saucon Lodge Freemason
Organization and, as a result, experienced retaliatory harassment that led to the loss
of his housing. Compl. at 11–12. 1 He further appears to allege that the harassment
continued when he relocated to New York, and that his complaints regarding this

The Court refers to the page numbers assigned by the Court’s Electronic
Case Filing (“ECF”) system.
1
1

alleged harassment have been ignored by various courts and agencies. Id. at 13–14.
Additionally, Plaintiff claims that the White House “ignored allegations made from
the plaintiff of a[n] on[]going identity theft as well ignored online complaints . . .
regarding Free Mason State Organization.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff does not provide the
relief he seeks. Id. at 16.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). If a liberal reading of the complaint “gives
any indication that a valid claim might be stated,” a court must grant leave to amend
the complaint. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (citation
omitted). However, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim
will be considered plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
requires a district court to dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis if the court
determines that the action: “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2

DISCUSSION
A. Saucon Lodge and the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons
Plaintiff sues Saucon Lodge and the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted
Masons (“Grand Lodge”) for what he asserts as the violation of his civil rights.
Plaintiff’s complaint references 42 U.S.C. §1983, Compl. at 8, and 18 U.S.C. § 249,
Compl. at 10. Liberally construing Plaintiff’s complaint to arise under those statutes,
his claims fail.
To start, to maintain a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must show that the defendant
(a) acted under color of state law (b) to deprive the plaintiff of a right arising under
the Constitution or federal law. Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir. 2010)
(citing Pitchell v. Callan, 13 F.3d 545, 547 (2d Cir. 1984)). “[T]he under-color-ofstate-law element of § 1983 excludes from its reach merely private conduct, no matter
how discriminatory or wrongful.” American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S.
40, 50 (1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Because the United
States Constitution regulates only the Government, not private parties, a litigant
claiming that his constitutional rights have been violated must first establish that
the challenged conduct constitutes state action.” Flagg v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass’n,
396 F.3d 178, 186 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs
bringing suit under § 1983 are therefore required to demonstrate that defendants
acted under color of state law when they engaged in the challenged conduct. See
Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193, 206–07 (2d Cir. 2012). Plaintiff has failed to

3

plausibly allege that either Saucon Lodge or the Grand Lodge, private fraternal
organizations, acted under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.
Additionally, “although federal law does prohibit the commission of hate
crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 249(a), this law is a criminal statute that cannot be enforced
by a private party in a civil action such as this.” Thomas v. Thurston, No. 18-cv-4007,
2020 WL 1082752, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2020) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Therefore, even affording the complaint the most liberal reading, the claims
against Saucon Lodge and the Grand Lodge must be dismissed because the complaint
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 2
B. Federal Defendants
In addition, Plaintiff sues President Joe Biden, National Security Agency
Director Paul M. Nakasone, and Central Intelligence Agency Director William J.
Burns. Compl. at 8. The complaint cannot proceed against these Defendants because
these Defendants are clearly entitled to immunity and, therefore, Plaintiff’s claims
are frivolous.

The Court also notes that venue is likely not proper in this Court because
Saucon Lodge is located in Coopersburg, Pennsylvania and the Grand Lodge is
located in New York County; it is not clear whether any events occurred within this
district. See 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) (“a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district
in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which
the district is located” or “(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.”).
2

4

An action “is frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly
baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the
claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Livingston v. Adirondack
Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Moreover, “[a] complaint will be dismissed as ‘frivolous’ when ‘it is clear
that the defendants are immune from suit.’” Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757, 760 (2d
Cir. 1999) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).
Here, it appears that Plaintiff sues these Defendants because they failed to
respond to his complaints. Even if the complaint is liberally construed as alleging
claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed.

To start,

Plaintiff’s claims against President Biden are frivolous because “the President is
absolutely immune from civil damages liability for his official acts in the absence of
explicit affirmative action by Congress.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 748 n.27
(1982). And Plaintiff’s claims against Director Nakasone and Director Burns must
be dismissed because “sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its
agencies from suit,” F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994), and “any claim
against [the agency director] in [their] official capacity is the equivalent of a claim
against a United States agency,” Nwanze v. Philip Morris Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 215,
220 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Therefore, the complaint is dismissed as to President Biden,
Director Nakasone and Director Burns pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and
(iii).
5

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the complaint, filed in forma pauperis, is
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Despite Plaintiff’s pro se status, the
Court declines to grant leave to amend as it finds that amendment would be futile.
Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123 (2d Cir. 2011) (affirming district court decision to
dismiss pro se complaint without leave to amend where amendment would be futile).
In light of Plaintiff’s litigation history, 3 Plaintiff is cautioned that he may be
subject to a filing injunction barring him from filing new actions seeking in forma
pauperis status without prior leave of this Court. Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121,
123 (2d Cir. 2000).
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would
not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the
purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment, close this case,
and mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

March 26, 2024
Brooklyn, New York

/s/ NRM
____________________________________
NINA R. MORRISON
United States District Judge

See Ward v. Park, et al., No. 23-cv-7096 (filed Sept. 19, 2023); Ward v. Adams,
et al., No. 23-cv-5237 (filed July 5, 2023) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Ward
v. Bureau of Vital Records, et al., No. 23-cv-5236 (filed July 5, 2023) (transferred to
the Southern District of New York); Ward v. Admin. for Child.’s Sers., No. 23-cv-5235
(filed July 5, 2023); Ward v. Project Hosp. Shelter, No. 23-cv-4037 (filed June 6, 2023)
(complaint dismissed with leave to amend); Ward v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 23-cv-4034
(filed June 2, 2023) (complaint dismissed).
3

6