Booth v. United States
Opinion
FILED MAR. 14, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Court for the District of Columbia
KADEEM TASHAUN MYKENG BOOTH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 22-123 (UNA) ) ) UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a Complaint against the United States, ECF No. 1, and
an application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the application and
dismiss the case.
Plaintiff is a resident of Saint Ann, Missouri, who seeks “to be relieved from foreign
allegiance with foreign states and the governments thereof.” Compl. at 2. As the bases of
jurisdiction, Plaintiff cites
28 U.S.C. § 1330, which governs “Actions against foreign states” and
thus not applicable to this action against the United States, and
28 U.S.C. § 1331, which confers
original jurisdiction in the district courts over civil actions “arising under the . . . laws . . . of the
United States” and thus is applicable. See Compl. at 1 (invoking Expatriation Act). Plaintiff’s
claim rests entirely on the following vague assertion: “As a government that has been removed
from nationhood status and invested with rights of citizenship and is a subject of foreign states, I
Kadeem Tashaun Mykeng Booth disavows allegiance to foreign states and governments.”
Id.Plaintiff has not identified any foreign state to which he disavows allegiance.
Nevertheless, “[c]onsistent with a longstanding recognition by all three branches of the right to
1 expatriate, Congress codified a statutory right to expatriate and specified a series of actions that
effectuate loss of nationality.” Farrell v. Blinken,
4 F.4th 124, 134-35(D.C. Cir. 2021). Nothing
suggests that Plaintiff has proceeded under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§
1101–1537, which grants “substantial authority” in “the Secretary of State to administer
naturalization laws, including laws governing the expatriation of U.S. citizens,” Farrell,
4 F.4th at 135. Consequently, this case will be dismissed. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (requiring
dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
_________/s/___________ AMIT P. MEHTA Date: March 14, 2022 United States District Judge
2
Reference
- Status
- Published