United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 2024

Ronet v. United States

Ronet v. United States
United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Decided September 11, 2024
Ronet v. United States

Trial Court Opinion

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Jean-Pierre Ronet, No. CV-24-01664-PHX-KML 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. United States of America, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Jean-Pierre Ronet filed a complaint against the United States of America, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, and “the Ratings Board.” Ronet also filed an application for leave to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. (Doc. 2.) That application is granted. Having granted that application, the court can assess whether Ronet’s complaint states any claims on which he might be able to obtain relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). It does not.

21 The court can identify three claims in Ronet’s complaint. Those claims are not viable. First, Ronet “seeks criminal charges against Defendants.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) Only the government can pursue the criminal charges Ronet has in mind. See Abcarian v. Levine, 972 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining criminal statutes rarely create private rights of action). Second, Ronet claims defendants have violated the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The provisions of that document cannot be enforced through a lawsuit in federal court. See Sosa v. Alvarez–Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734 (2004).

28 And third, Ronet requests some assistance with obtaining benefits from the Veterans || Administration. (Doc. | at 3.) This court is “disqualified from hearing veterans’ suits 2|| concerning their benefits.” Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1022- (9th Cir. 2012).

4 Ronet’s complaint does not state any claims on which relief might be granted and it || would not be possible to amend any of these claims such that they would be viable.

6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.

9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice and close this case.

12 Dated this 11th day of September, 2024.

14 “/ □□ Vo A. \ G. / .

Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 16 United States District Judge _2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.