CALLOWAY v. UNITED STATES
2:24-cv-05998
E.D. Pa.Nov 26, 2024Background
- Jesse Calloway, IV, a pro se litigant, filed multiple civil lawsuits in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, involving claims against government officials, police officers, and a private company.
- Three prior lawsuits by Calloway were dismissed for failure to state plausible legal claims, frivolous legal theories, and lack of cognizable rights.
- In the present case, Calloway sued the United States and Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro, seeking redress for alleged historical and personal wrongs and challenging prior adverse rulings.
- Calloway sought substantial monetary and injunctive relief, including $9 billion in “new currency,” return of ancestral lands, and special rights for descendants of enslaved individuals.
- The Court granted Calloway in forma pauperis status due to his inability to pay, but screened his complaint for legal sufficiency under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
- The Court dismissed the complaint as frivolous, legally baseless, and barred by immunities, and warned Calloway about possible future filing restrictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal judge's rulings on prior cases | Rulings violated rights, sought review & redress | Judge immune; proper avenue is appeal | Judge entitled to absolute immunity; suit dismissed |
| Monetary claims against the U.S. | U.S. violated constitutional rights; damages sought | U.S. immune absent waiver of sovereign immunity | U.S. immune; no waiver for these claims |
| Use of sovereign citizen/legal theories | Asserted sovereign citizen arguments | Theories consistently held frivolous | Theories rejected as legally frivolous |
| Leave to amend the complaint | Implied right to amend, as pro se litigant | Amendment is futile given baseless claims | Leave to amend denied as futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (clarifies plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (defines "frivolous" under § 1915)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (judicial immunity doctrine)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (outlines sovereign immunity of the United States)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (factual frivolousness standard)