Grant v. United States Department of Justice
Civil Action No. 2017-1434
D.D.C.Aug 4, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff filed a 77‑page "Certification" construed as a complaint against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking $30 trillion in damages.
- Plaintiff claims he was an Illinois state employee (2009–2014), was laid off, filed state civil rights and ethics complaints in 2012, and was thereafter blacklisted and denied unemployment benefits.
- Plaintiff alleges DOJ made him an informant and later failed to respond to his state and federal complaints, infringing his constitutional rights and access to employment.
- The complaint contains conclusory allegations, rhetorical questions, and attached a Central District of Illinois order dismissing a prior complaint as frivolous.
- Plaintiff seeks money damages from DOJ for constitutional violations and alleged failures to respond to his filings.
- Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim or frivolousness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint states plausible claim against DOJ for constitutional torts and related misconduct | DOJ created a program that violated plaintiff's constitutional rights and failed to respond to his complaints, causing harm and employment deprivation | United States (and its agencies) are not alleged to have committed specific wrongful acts giving rise to liability; general allegations insufficient | Dismissed: plaintiff's conclusory allegations fail to meet Rule 8/Iqbal plausibility standard; no factual or legal basis alleged |
| Whether complaint is frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B) | Plaintiff contends his claims are valid and seeks large damages for harms | Defendant argues claims lack arguable basis in law or fact | Dismissed as frivolous: complaint lacks an arguable legal or factual basis per Neitzke/Crisafi analysis |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars money damages for constitutional torts against federal agencies | Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from DOJ for constitutional violations | United States is immune from suit for constitutional torts absent waiver | Dismissed: sovereign immunity applies (FDIC v. Meyer) |
| Whether prior dismissal in Central District of Illinois affects current suit | Plaintiff includes prior dismissal order but persists in claims | Defendant relies on prior dismissal and similar deficiencies | Court follows prior conclusion; complaint fails for same reasons and is dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility and Rule 8 pleading standard)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (screening frivolous pro se complaints under § 1915)
- Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305 (assessing substance of claims for frivolousness)
- Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886 (frivolousness standard referenced)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (United States and agencies immune from suit for constitutional torts)