Atakapa Indian de Creole v. State of Louisiana, et
943 F.3d 1004
5th Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Edward Moses, Jr., a lawyer who styles himself in regal/religious titles, sued on behalf of the "Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation," an entity not federally recognized.
- The original filing framed the action as habeas corpus alleging the group were wards/pupils of the State and the United States; later filings sought maritime libel treatment and asserted antitrust and Title VII jurisdiction.
- Complaints invoked historical treaties, the "Doctrine of Discovery," and sensational allegations (including attempts to stop a supposed monopoly on "intergalactic foreign trade").
- The United States and Louisiana moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (sovereign immunity and related defects). The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, denied multiple motions (leave to amend, emergency injunction, reconsideration), and flagged potential Rule 11 violations.
- Moses appealed; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, resting on the alternative ground that the claims were wholly insubstantial and frivolous, so the federal courts lacked power to entertain them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (sovereign immunity) | Moses asserted federal-question jurisdiction (antitrust, Title VII, treaty rights) | US & LA argued lack of jurisdiction and sovereign immunity | Affirmed dismissal; court relied on frivolousness as alternative jurisdictional defect |
| Whether claims present a non-frivolous federal question | Claimed antitrust violations, treaty-based rights, and other federal-law claims | Claims are insubstantial, implausible, and devoid of merit | Claims are "wholly insubstantial and frivolous"; no federal-question jurisdiction |
| Leave to amend and other procedural relief | Sought leave to file additional amended complaints and emergency injunctions | Defendants argued motions were meritless and would not cure defects | Denials affirmed because amendments would not salvage frivolous claims |
| Rule 11 / sanctions | Implicitly contested potential sanctions | District court found filings may violate Rule 11 and warrant sanctions | Appellate court affirmed denial of requested relief; district court did not err in noting potential Rule 11 violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Southpark Square Ltd. v. City of Jackson, Miss., 565 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1977) (federal courts lack power to entertain wholly insubstantial and frivolous claims)
- Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Oneida Cty., 414 U.S. 661 (1974) (describing claims that are insubstantial or plainly without merit)
- Crain v. Comm’r, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (courts should decline to parse patently frivolous pleadings)
- Rothe Dev., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 666 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard of de novo review for jurisdictional dismissals)