Bell v. United States of America

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL... The Court dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). All other pending matters in this case are terminated. The Court certifies, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any ap peal from this order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing this action. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/20/24) (yv) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANTHONY GEORGE BELL,
Plaintiff,
-againstUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

24-CV-2435 (LTS)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendant.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action invoking the court’s federal question
jurisdiction. He asserts that the United States of America has caused him to suffer physically and
emotionally because of racism. By order dated May 22, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s
request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court dismisses this action.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see
Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also
dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is
obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and
interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted,
emphasis in original).

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, who resides in Brooklyn, New York, brings this action using the court’s general
complaint form and checks the box on the form to invoke the court’s federal question
jurisdiction. In response to the question asking which of his federal constitutional or federal
statutory rights have been violated, he writes, “civil rights.” 1 (ECF 1, at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that
the events giving rise to his claims have been occurring since 1970 and are ongoing.
Plaintiff provides a list of grievances as the facts in support of his case against the United
States. His grievances include the following: (1) the government has been “promoting
discrimination ever[] since slavery days,” and are “continuing with systematic racism now,”
which is “propelled by the legislative branch”; (2) under the Constitution, the legislative branch,
which include congressman and senators, are required to follow the same laws as other American
citizens, but they are not; (3) the government has allowed foreign and domestic terrorists to
“thrive,” including “white supremist, KKK, Neo Nazis, every gang from A to Z, [and] so called
American”; (4) the government has not protected citizens from “corporate greed”; (5) the
government has allowed a “straight up right supremist to run the country into the ground and
now [is] ready to do it again because one party wants the KKK, white supremist, Neo Nazis
vote”; (6) under the Constitution, “church has no business in the government, but our judges
especially in the Supreme Court who were appointed by Trump have ruled on a lot of things
based on the church”; (7) “our judges, not all but too many are biased, racist and corrupt and
have no morals or conscience, same as a lot of our government”; (8) the government has allowed
state and cities to give more to illegal aliens and migrants than to American citizens; (9) the

1

Plaintiff writes using irregular capitalization. For readability, the Court uses standard
capitalization when quoting from the complaint. All other spelling, grammar, and punctuation are
as in the original unless otherwise indicated.
2

government has treated people on Social Security “like garbage”; (10) the government has
allowed gangs to “set up shop here,” and let terrorists in without proper vetting; and (11) the
government has allowed immigrants and aliens to have more rights than American citizens. (Id.
at 5-7.)
Plaintiff asserts that “[b]ecause of [the] government racism towards Black American[s],”
he has “suffered physically and emotionally,” including from PTSD. (Id. at 7.) He seeks to hold
public officials accountable for their actions and 10 billion dollars in damages.
DISCUSSION
A.

Sovereign immunity
The Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the United States of America under the

doctrine of sovereign immunity. This doctrine bars federal courts from hearing all suits against
the federal government except where sovereign immunity has been waived. United States v.
Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980) (quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586
(1941)).
Plaintiff alleges no facts or legal provisions that suggest that the doctrine of sovereign
immunity has been waived with respect to his claims against the United States of America. The
Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the United States of America under the
doctrine of sovereign immunity, and consequently, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
B.

Standing
Even if his claims were not precluded by sovereign immunity, Plaintiff has failed to

allege facts sufficient to show that he has standing to assert his claims. Article III, Section 2, of
the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts “to the resolution of cases and
controversies.” Mahon v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 683 F.3d 59, 62 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation and
3

internal quotation marks omitted). “Standing to sue or defend is an aspect of the case-orcontroversy requirement.” Arizonians for Off. Eng. v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997). To
demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he has personally suffered some actual or
threatened injury as a result of the defendant’s alleged illegal conduct; (2) the injury is fairly
traceable to the defendant’s conduct; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by the requested
relief. Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc.,
454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982). The burden of establishing standing to sue rests with the party
bringing the action. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Moreover, “a
generalized grievance, no matter how sincere, is insufficient to confer standing. A litigant raising
only a generally available grievance . . . and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly
benefits him than it does the public at large . . . does not state an Article III case or controversy.”
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 706 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).“‘If [a] plaintiff[] lack[s] Article III standing, a [federal] court has no subject matter
jurisdiction to hear [his] claim.’” Mahon, 683 F.3d at 62 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); see also Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S.
694, 702 (1982) (“Subject-matter jurisdiction . . . is an Art. III as well as a statutory requirement.
. . .”).
Plaintiff’s claims appear to arise out of his dissatisfaction with how he perceives the
United States government is working and the ills that ail the country. He does not, however,
allege any facts showing that he himself has suffered a concrete and particularized injury caused
by the government. Plaintiff’s assertions do not present a case or controversy as required by
Article III; they are merely generalized grievances, which do not establish the standing that is
required to maintain a suit in federal court. See Hollingsworth, 570 U.S. at 706. Accordingly, the

4

Court also dismisses Plaintiff’s claims for lack of standing and, consequently, for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Mahon, 683 F.3d at 62.
C.

Leave to amend denied
District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to

cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required where it would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione,
657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988).
Because it appears that the defects in Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be cured with an amendment,
the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend.
CONCLUSION
The Court dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). All other pending matters in this case are terminated.
The Court certifies, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith and, therefore, IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing this action.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 20, 2024
New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge

5