meyer v. Merjanian

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

WESTERN DIVISION

SUSANNE-MARIE: MEYER, A LIVING )

PERSON; )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 4:21-00202-CV-RK

v. )

)

LOUISA MERJANIAN, BARBARA )

ARDEN SCHROCK, NEIL SIMPSON, )

VICTOR KICKLOWITZ, PAUL-WESLEY )

FOSTER, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (Docs. 15, 25.) After careful

consideration the motions are GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff filed her pro se Complaint on March 29, 2021. (Doc. 1) Plaintiff alleges federal

jurisdiction based on (1) pressganging (2) inland piracy; and (3) peonage and enslavement.

Plaintiff’s claims are not readily ascertainable from her Complaint. However, it appears Plaintiff’s

claims arise from her exclusion from the St. Germain Foundation (the “Foundation”).

Legal Standard

“A Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenges the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a

cause of action.” Knox v. St. Louis City Sch. Dist., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209123, at *2

(E.D. Mo. Dec. 12, 2018). “Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a federal court to decide

the claim before it.” Id. (citing Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortg. Corp., 137 S. Ct. 553, 562 (2017)).

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America,

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts retain the power to hear cases only if authorized to do

so by both the Constitution and by statute. Id. “Generally speaking, a federal court’s subject-

matter jurisdiction over a case must be based on either [a] federal question . . . or diversity.” Miller

v. Clark, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196713, at *1 (W.D. Mo. June 14, 2013). If a federal court lacks

jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, the court must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3).

Further, “[a] document filed pro se is “to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint,

however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted

by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081

(2007) (citations and quotations omitted). However, while “pro se complaints are to be construed

liberally, they still must allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced.” Stone v. Harry,

364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).

Discussion

Defendants argue the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The Court agrees.

I. Diversity Jurisdiction

Plaintiff does not plead diversity jurisdiction. Additionally, Plaintiff and Defendant Foster

are citizens of Missouri for purposes of diversity. Therefore, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction.

II. Federal Question Jurisdiction

“Federal question jurisdiction exists only when the plaintiff’s well pleaded complaint

establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief

necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” McNeill v. Franke,

171 F.3d 561, 563 (8th Cir. 1999) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The vast majority

of cases brought under the general federal-question jurisdiction are those in which federal law

creates the cause of action. Id. at 563-564 (cleaned up). “When state law creates the cause of

action, original federal jurisdiction is unavailable unless it appears that some substantial, disputed

question of federal law is a necessary element of one of the well pleaded state claims, or that one

of the other claims is really one of federal law.” Id. at 564. (cleaned up). “[T]he mere presence of

a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal question

jurisdiction.” Id.

Plaintiff makes several allegations of federal question jurisdiction. First, Plaintiff claims

“press[-]ganging: Land Jurisdiction Not Sea Jurisdiction.” The Court has found no case

discussing “press-ganging” and no authority supporting it as a basis of federal jurisdiction. As

such, it does not support an allegation of federal jurisdiction. Additionally, even if it did, Plaintiff’s

Complaint is insufficient. The word “press-ganging” is defined as “a detachment of men under

command of an officer empowered to force men into military or naval service.” “Press-gang.”

Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed August, 10, 2021. https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/press-gang. Even construing Plaintiff’s Complaint and the definition of

“press-ganging” liberally, Plaintiff fails to plead any facts suggesting she was forced into the

military against her will. Therefore, “press-ganging” does not establish jurisdiction.

Second, Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction under inland piracy. Plaintiff specifically pleads

“[s]ea jurisdiction laps on to my land as a Missourian.” In order for admiralty law to form the

basis of federal question jurisdiction, not only must navigable waters be implicated, but the wrong

claimed must also bear some relationship to traditional maritime activity. See Executive Jet

Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 409 U.S. 249, 268 (1972) (holding that crash of airplane

in navigable waters did not give rise to federal question jurisdiction based on admiralty since this

claim did not involve traditional maritime activity). Here, Plaintiff pleads no relation to any

navigable waters and no wrong bearing a relationship to traditional maritime activity.

Additionally, Plaintiff pleads no claim of piracy as she does not allege any Defendant illegally

boarded her ship, or even that she possesses a ship. As such, inland piracy does not provide a basis

of federal jurisdiction.

Plaintiff also pleads peonage and enslavement. Specifically, she alleges she “was forced

against [her] will to turn over [her] claim as having authority for the Saint Germain Foundation

Unincorporated Educational/Patriotic School to a dictator-a religious organ a church – the Vatican

The Largest Corporate Conglomerate in the World.” “Peonage is compulsory service in payment

of a debt.” U.S. v. Farrell, 563 F.3d 364, 372 (8th Cir. 2009). “Compulsory service is the

equivalent of involuntary servitude, which the Supreme Court has defined as a condition of

servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use of threat of physical

restraint or physical injury, or by the use of threat of coercion through law or the legal process.”

Id. (cleaned up). Plaintiff does not allege Defendants forced her to work. Rather, she alleges that

she was forced to give up a claim. This falls short of the necessary allegations for peonage or

enslavement.

Next, Plaintiff makes a lone reference to the Tenth Amendment. This fails to establish

federal jurisdiction as Plaintiff pleads no federal action. See Johnson Controls, Inc. v. City of

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 713 F.2d 370, 376 (8th Cir. 1983) (the elements of a Tenth Amendment

challenge are: “(1) The federal action must regulate the ‘state as a state’; (2) The federal action

must regulate matters that are indisputable attributes of state sovereignty; (3) The state’s

compliance with the federal action or statute must directly impair the state’s ability ‘to structure

integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions; and (4) In situations where there

is a weighty federal interest, the state must show that the nature of the federal interest advanced is

not so great that it justifies state submission to the federal action.”) (cleaned up).

Finally, while Plaintiff did not specifically plead a violation of the First Amendment, she

seems to plead she was excluded from the St. Germain Foundation and its religious activities. See

United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944) (holding that the Foundation’s I AM Activity is

subject to the protections of the First Amendment’s religion clauses). However, even these

allegations are insufficient because the Court may not interfere in any person or group’s decisions

about religious orthodoxy or teachers of that orthodoxy. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran

Church & Sch. v. E.E.O.C., 565 U.S. 171, 192-94 (2012). Therefore, the Court finds it lacks

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, and to the extent she alleges a First Amendment violation, her

claims fail as a matter of law.

Conclusion

Accordingly, and after careful consideration, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are

GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Roseann A. Ketchmark

ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DATED: August 12, 2021