Horton v. United States of America et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Permitting Amended Complaint and Temporarily granting 2 Motion to Waive Filing Fee. Plaintiff is permitted to file an amended complaint by December 16, 2024. The court again temporarily grants the motion to waive the filing fee3 pending screening of the amended complaint, if any is filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 11/25/24. (dle)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER PERMITTING AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND TEMPORARILY
GRANTING MOTION TO WAIVE
FILING FEE (DOC. NO. 2)

DONALD TROY HORTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
JOSEPH R. BIDEN; KAMALA HARRIS;
MERRICK GARLAND; ANTHONY J.
BLINKEN; and DEIDRE HENDERSON,

Case No. 2:24-cv-00602
District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg

Defendants.

Plaintiff Donald Troy Horton filed this action without an attorney and without
paying the filing fee. 1 The court temporarily granted Mr. Horton’s motion to proceed
without paying the fee and stayed the case pending review. 2 As explained below,
because Mr. Horton’s complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief, Mr. Horton is
permitted to file an amended complaint by December 16, 2024. The court again
temporarily grants the motion to waive the filing fee 3 pending screening of the amended
complaint, if any is filed.

1 (See Compl., Doc. No. 1; Mot. for Leave to Proceed Without Paying the Filing Fee,

Doc. No. 2.)

2 (See Order Temporarily Granting Mot. to Proceed Without Paying the Filing Fee and

Notice of Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Doc. No. 6.)

3 (Doc. No. 2.)

1

LEGAL STANDARDS
When a court authorizes a party to proceed without paying a filing fee, it must
dismiss the case if it determines the complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 4 In making this determination, the court uses the standard for analyzing a motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. 5 To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”6 The court accepts wellpleaded factual allegations as true and views the allegations in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff, drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. 7 But the court
need not accept a plaintiff’s conclusory allegations as true. 8 “[A] plaintiff must offer
specific factual allegations to support each claim.”9
Because Mr. Horton proceeds without an attorney (pro se), his filings are liberally
construed and held “to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” 10 Still, pro se plaintiffs must “follow the same rules of procedure that govern

4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)–(iii).
5 Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007).
6 Hogan v. Winder, 762 F.3d 1096, 1104 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)).

7 Wilson v. Montano, 715 F.3d 847, 852 (10th Cir. 2013).
8 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
9 Kan. Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 2011).
10 Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.

2

other litigants.”11 For instance, a pro se plaintiff “still has the burden of alleging
sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based.” 12 While the court
must make some allowances for a pro se plaintiff’s “failure to cite proper legal authority,
his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his
unfamiliarity with pleading requirements,”13 the court “will not supply additional factual
allegations to round out a plaintiff’s complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff’s
behalf.” 14
MR. HORTON’S COMPLAINT
Mr. Horton’s complaint consists of a form civil rights complaint filled out by hand,
along with six exhibits including various bank records, a police complaint Mr. Horton
filed, an “Affidavit of Repudiation a.k.a. Revocation of Citizenship,” a “Declaration of
Trust Horton Familia in GOD I Trust,” a business card for a United States
Congressman’s Constituent Services Manager, and a “NGO New Civil Society Flag.” 15
Because Mr. Horton’s pleadings are liberally construed, and attachments to a complaint

11 Garrett v. Selby, Connor, Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005)

(citation omitted).

12 Jenkins v. Currier, 514 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

13 Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
14 Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1096 (10th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
15 (See Exs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 to Compl., Doc. No. 1-1.)

Mr. Horton’s exhibits are
numbered one through seven, with the number three omitted.
3

may be considered in determining whether it states a plausible claim for relief, 16 all
these documents are considered in evaluating the sufficiency of Mr. Horton’s claims.
Mr. Horton brought this action against the United States of America, Joseph R.
Biden, Kamala Harris, Merrick Garland, Anthony J. Blinken, and Deidre Henderson. 17
Mr. Horton checked boxes on his form civil rights complaint indicating he is bringing
claims under Bivens and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the following right(s):
“Birthright to pursuit of life, liberty and happiness under laws of god to be unfettered +
free of all gov common law, maritime law, rule of law and color of law being conducted
in these United States.” 18 Mr. Horton describes the facts underlying his claims as
follows:
After being forced into early retirement by gov, I started/founded + cofounded 2 NGO. The USA gov will not allow my or[d]inary (non-corp)
NGO to open a bank account, so our 1st donor Mrs. Joy Faisal c/o her
attorney barrister Nansoa Ha wired via SWIFT MT103 $4,500,000 USD to
my personal acct on 23 July 2024. But gov via fedbank confiscated these
funds and did not permit transfer to my account. MACU (my bank),
SWIFT, NYBank of Mellon (corresponding bank) will not track trace or
complete the transfer. Our NGO issued 1 trillion USD worth of NGO coins
to exchange for donor funds. Gov is blocking all opp-[illegible.] 19
Mr. Horton alleges he suffered “financial injury” in the form of “1 trillion USD
worth of NGO coins on Blockchain Exchange,” and “real financial + personal injury”

16 See Smith, 561 F.3d at 1098 (“In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, courts

may consider not only the complaint itself, but also attached exhibits, and documents
incorporated into the complaint by reference.” (citation omitted)).
17 (See Compl., Doc. No. 1.)

18 (Id. at 4–5); see also Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

19 (Compl., Doc. No. 1 at 5.)

4

because the “gov will not permit” his “NGO coins” to be exchanged for other
currencies. 20 Mr. Horton seeks the following relief:
1. Immediate release of $4,500,000 USD sent to be delivered to my acct
immediately w/out delay.
2. I demand “written” response to accept and acknowledge my right to
exist as a loving living soul outside the gov systems to enslave by
contract and travel unfetted [sic] and free world wide no visa required
for me and all my donors.
3. I demand financial compensation + damages allowed for hardship both
financially + emotionally knowing the truth + facts my gov is in the
business of for profit enslave trade. 21
ANALYSIS
As explained below, because Mr. Horton fails to state a claim, he will be given an
opportunity to amend his complaint.
At the outset, even construing Mr. Horton’s complaint liberally, it is difficult to
discern what claims he is attempting to bring or the underlying facts on which any
cognizable claim could be based. Mr. Horton’s complaint consists of largely incoherent
allegations that the “gov” did not permit Mr. Horton’s “NGO coin” transfers and did not
respond to Mr. Horton’s “affidavit of repudiation of citizenship.”22 Mr. Horton does not
explain how these vague factual assertions give rise to a cognizable cause of action.
Mr. Horton’s exhibits are likewise unintelligible—they consist of seemingly random
documents and Mr. Horton does not explain their relevance. 23 For these reasons, Mr.
20 (Id. at 6.)
21 (Id.)
22 (See id. at 4–6.)
23 (See, e.g., Ex. 1 to Compl., “Donor’s Bank Funds,” Doc. No. 1-1 at 1–14 (consisting of

various financial records from a Cambodian bank, a photocopy of Mr. Horton’s passport,
and an “ESGTA Letter of Cooperation”); Ex. 4 to Compl., “Affidavit of Repudiation a.k.a.
5

Horton fails to state a claim. 24 Mr. Horton’s complaint also violates Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that a complaint contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and that
“[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.”25
To the extent Mr. Horton’s complaint is decipherable, it still fails to state a claim.
Mr. Horton checked boxes on his form civil rights complaint indicating he is bringing
claims under Bivens and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provide recovery mechanisms for
violations of federal rights in certain circumstances. 26 First, the United States of
America (which Mr. Horton names as a defendant) is not a proper Bivens or § 1983

Revocation of Citizenship,” Doc. No. 1-1 at 17–56 (“Therefore, in order to secure the
Blessing of Liberty to my posterity and myself, to re-acquire my Birthright as ‘one’ of a
member of the Sovereign Social Body of ‘We the People,’ I hereby Asseverate,
Repudiate and Revoke my Citizenship, if any ever existed, with the Legal fiction known
as the ‘UNITED STATES’ Government (Corporation), USA Inc, and any and all
subsidiary corporations both known (STATE, COUNTY, CITY,) and unknown under its
control.”).)
24 See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).

(“[T]o state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did
to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or her;
and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.”).

25 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 8(d)(1); see also Padilla v. Mnuchin, 802 F. App’x 426,

427 (10th Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (“A district court may dismiss an action under Rule
41(b) for failure to comply with Rule 8.”).

26 See Chapoose v. Hodel, 831 F.2d 931, 935 (10th Cir. 1987) (“A Bivens action seeks

to impose personal liability and damages on a federal official for the violation of a
constitutional right.”); Watson v. Kansas City, 857 F.2d 690, 694 (10th Cir. 1988) (“To
establish a cause of action under [§] 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) deprivation of a
federal right by (2) a person acting under color of state law”).
6

defendant—the United States is protected by sovereign immunity from such claims. 27
As to the remaining defendants, Mr. Horton does not identify any specific actions they
have taken—his allegations are targeted generally at the “gov.” 28 Similarly, Mr. Horton
does not identify a cognizable right. 29 Accordingly, Mr. Horton fails to state a claim
under Bivens or § 1983.
Finally, on the civil cover sheet submitted with his complaint, Mr. Horton checked
boxes indicating he is bringing contract, real property, personal injury, Americans with
Disabilities Act, and “Banks and Banking” claims. 30 But Mr. Horton does not reference
or clarify these claims in his complaint, or otherwise provide any legal or factual basis
supporting them. 31

27 See Clark v. Lynch, 213 F. Supp. 3d 1347, 1351 (D. Kan. 2016) (noting the United

States has not waived sovereign immunity for § 1983 claims); Smith, 561 F.3d at 1099
(noting “Bivens claims cannot be asserted directly against the United States”).
28 (See generally Compl., Doc. No. 1); see also Pahls v. Thomas, 718 F.3d 1210, 1226

(10th Cir. 2013) (“[I]t is incumbent upon a plaintiff to ‘identify specific actions taken by
particular defendants’ in order to make out a viable § 1983 or Bivens claim.” (citing
Tonkovich v. Kan. Bd. of Regents, 159 F.3d 504, 532 (10th Cir. 1998); Nasious, 492
F.3d at 1163 (“[T]o state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each
defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action
harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant
violated.”).

29 (See Compl., Doc. No. 1 at 4 (alleging Defendants violated Mr. Horton’s “[b]irthright to

pursuit of life, liberty and happiness under laws of god to be unfettered + free of all gov
common law, maritime law, rule of law and color of law being conducted in these United
States”).) It is impossible to discern what constitutional or statutory right Mr. Horton is
referring to.

30 (See Civ. Cover Sheet, Doc. No. 1-2.)
31 See also Cordero v. Froats, No. 13-031, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144976, at *4 (D.N.M.

Oct. 19, 2016) (unpublished) (“The civil cover sheet is an administrative aid to the court
clerk and is not typically considered to be part of a party’s pleading.” (citing Favors v.
Coughlin, 877 F.2d 219, 220 (2d Cir. 1989))).
7

Because Mr. Horton’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim, it is subject to
dismissal. 32 Nevertheless, “[d]ismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim
is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has
alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend.”33 Accordingly, Mr.
Horton is given an opportunity to amend his complaint.
CONCLUSION
1.

Mr. Horton may file an amended complaint by December 16, 2024. The

words “Amended Complaint” should appear in the caption of the document.
2.

Mr. Horton is advised that an amended complaint will completely replace

all prior versions of the complaint. Claims which are not realleged in the amended
complaint will be deemed abandoned. 34
3.

Once filed, the court will screen the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e) and Rule DUCivR 3-2(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice. 35

32 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
33 Kay, 500 F.3d at 1217 (citation omitted).
34 See Pierce v. Williams, No. CIV 20-284, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185074, at *6 (E.D.

Okla. Oct. 6, 2020) (unpublished) (“An amended complaint completely replaces the
original complaint and renders the original complaint of no legal effect.” (citing Miller v.
Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1565 (10th Cir. 1991))).

35 See DUCivR 3-2(b), available at

https://www.utd.uscourts.gov/sites/utd/files/Civil%20Rules%20Final%202023.pdf
[https://perma.cc/YJY4-VSML].
8

4.

Other than an amended complaint, the restriction on filing other

documents set forth in the court’s August 22, 2024 order 36 remains in place.
5.

Failure to file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this action.

DATED this 25th day of November, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
Daphne A. Oberg
United States Magistrate Judge

36 (Doc. No. 6.)

9