Janczuk v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WERONIKA E.K. JANCZUK, Plaintiff, 24-CV-3754 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Weronika Janczuk, who is appearing pro se, filed this action invoking the court’s federal question jurisdiction and seeking injunctive relief. By order dated June 27, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this action.

STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted, emphasis in original).

BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this action naming as the defendant the United States of America. In the fact section of the complaint, Plaintiff alleges: The defendant here accounts for the litigative weight owed to the government itself in accord with its authority to create and draft laws and--more precisely, in accord with the right proportion--to check and balance disputes in contracts, including hypothetically those that dispute over issues left unresolved, in spaces unscaffolded by the law. The plaintiff takes no immediate position on whether-- again, in context—“a law of books” would or ought ever necessarily be a task of the government, be the government operative in its nature and instruments contemporary or be the government the institutional above-all federal or be the government some other institution centric. Perhaps the industry itself would be the best host for this kind of adjudication, but guaranteeing the grounding of all its pieces against all possible human encounters would almost definitely require governmental contact, i.e., were a book to ever be ruined in being trucked from one state to another on a public road.1 (ECF 1, at 2.)

Plaintiff describes the relief she seeks as follows: Where they do not come to be represented, Janczuk seeks to reserve the right to speak on their behalf, and asks here cleanly and positively that the USA give her the right to stand in capacity as publisher at any or all of them for the sake of the contracts that require delivery. (Id. at 8.)

DISCUSSION A. Sovereign immunity The Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the United States of America under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. This doctrine bars federal courts from hearing all suits against the federal government except where sovereign immunity has been waived. United States v. The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless otherwise indicated.

Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980) (quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941)).

Plaintiff alleges no facts or legal provisions that suggest that the doctrine of sovereign immunity has been waived with respect to her claims against Defendant. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the United States of America under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and consequently, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

B. Standing Plaintiff has also failed to allege facts sufficient to show that she has standing to assert her claims. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts “to the resolution of cases and controversies.” Mahon v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 683 F.3d 59, 62 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Standing to sue or defend is an aspect of the case-or-controversy requirement.” Arizonians for Off. Eng. v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997). To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the defendant’s alleged illegal conduct; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Am. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982). The burden of establishing standing to sue rests with the party bringing the action. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Moreover, “a generalized grievance, no matter how sincere, is insufficient to confer standing. A litigant raising only a generally available grievance . . . and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits [her] than it does the public at large . . . does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 706 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).“‘If [a] plaintiff[] lack[s] Article III standing, a [federal] court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear [her] claim.’” Mahon, 683 F.3d at 62 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982) (“Subject-matter jurisdiction . . . is an Art. III as well as a statutory requirement. . . .”).

Here, Plaintiff does not allege any facts showing that she has suffered a concrete and particularized injury caused by Defendant. In fact, she does not specify any harm she experienced. Rather, she requests that the United States provide her with the right to be a publisher. Accordingly, the Court also dismisses Plaintiff’s claims for lack of standing and, consequently, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Mahon, 683 F.3d at 62.

C. Plaintiff’s action is frivolous Under the IFP statute, a court must dismiss an action if it determines that the action is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An action is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (holding that “a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”); Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437 (“An action is frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . ; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Plaintiff, without any legal basis to do so, asks this Court to compel the United States to make her a publisher. Because there is no legal basis for such a claim for relief, the Court further dismisses this action as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

D. Leave to amend denied District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required where it would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988).

Because it appears that the defects in Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend.

CONCLUSION The Court dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as frivolous.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). All other pending matters in this case are terminated.

The Court certifies, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment in this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2024 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge