# Germaine James v. United States

> District Court, C.D. California · November 18, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10747635

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** November 18, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10747635

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming district court’s sua sponte dismissal of claim under Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6)
- applying the “general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity” including class actions
- affirming the dismissal of a class action for lack of jurisdiction because a pro se plaintiff “has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Germaine James v. United States of America
Case No. 2:24-cv-07745-MEMF-PD Date: November 18, 2024
T itle

Present: The Honorable: Patricia Donahue, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Isabel Verduzco N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
N/A N/A

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiff’s
Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed

On September 11, 2024, Germaine James (“Plaintiff”), a California
resident proceeding pro se, filed a complaint for violation of civil rights
against Defendant the United States of America. [Dkt. No. 1.] Plaintiff’s
complaint is brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Id. at 3, 4.]

Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims
occurred between the years 1619 through 2024 and are ongoing. [Id. at 4.1]
Plaintiff seeks reparations and is temporarily acting as a representative of a
class of individuals who are “United States (U.S.) descendants of chattel
slaves who are currently identified as U.S. Black citizens and who are the
surviving lineages of chattel slaves freed under the Emancipation
Proclamation on January 1, 1863.” [Id. at 6.] Plaintiff seeks relief in excess
of $654 billion dollars.

The Court has screened the Complaint. [Dkt. No. 1.] The Court issues
this Order to Show Cause directed to Plaintiff because the face of the

1 The Court uses the page numbers inserted on the pleadings by the electronic
docketing system.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Germaine James v. United States of America
Case No. 2:24-cv-07745-MEMF-PD Date: November 18, 2024
TCiotlme pl a i n t suggests that it is barred by sovereign immunity and the statute
of limitations.2

I. Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a
claim on its own (“sua sponte”) and without notice “where the claimant
cannot possibly win relief.” See Omar v. Sea–Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986,
991 (9th Cir. 1987). When a complaint clearly does not state a claim upon
which the court can grant relief, a court may dismiss the case on its own, at
the outset, without leave to amend. See Reed v. Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196,
1207-08 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming district court’s sua sponte dismissal of
claim under Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6)); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th
Cir. 1981) (district court has authority under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss sua
sponte for failure to state a claim).

In determining whether a complaint should be dismissed at screening,
the Court applies the same standard as that in a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d
1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015). Under that standard, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true” and viewed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, “to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This does not require “detailed
factual allegations,” but it does require “more than an unadorned, the-
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. The Court does not,
however, “accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted
deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State
Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) as amended on denial of reh’g,
275 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2001). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the
Court construes the Complaint liberally. Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060,
1061-62 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

2 Magistrate Judges may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend without approval
of the district judge. See McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Germaine James v. United States of America
Case No. 2:24-cv-07745-MEMF-PD Date: November 18, 2024
Title
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction: “They possess
only that power authorized by [the] Constitution and statute, which is not to
be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citation omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause
lies outside [of federal courts’] limited jurisdiction, and the burden of
establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id.
(citations omitted). Courts have an independent obligation to determine
whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge
from any party. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). “If the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the
court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“Rule 12(h)(3)”).

II. Summary of Factual Allegations and Claims

Plaintiff alleges that the “U.S. government has a debt owed to the
descendants of chattel slaves who transitioned to freed slaves.” [Dkt. No. 1 at
11.] Plaintiff alleges that former President Ronald Reagan and Congress
provided an apology and reparations/compensation to Japanese Americans
who were interned during World War II. [Id. at 8, 11.] Plaintiff alleges that
“Blacks who are the actual U.S. war crimes victims were denied reparations
and an apology for the ulcerous treatment inflicted on [them] during slavery
and post slavery.” [Id. at 11.] Plaintiff alleges that “Blacks were forced to
rent small plots of land from White landowners for housing and pay high
interest rates on materials needed for sharecropping in exchange for free
labor.” [Id. at 12.] Plaintiff alleges that “White landowners reaped the fruits
of Blacks labor while keeping them in an endless cycle of debt and poverty.”
[Id.]

Plaintiff alleges that “as of 2024 and ongoing, Presidents and Congress
under its taxing of income and spending power, allocated taxpayers’ money to
provide funding that aid in the socio-economic advancement specifically and
exclusively for Hispanics or Spanish speaking races who are mostly pale/light
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Germaine James v. United States of America
Case No. 2:24-cv-07745-MEMF-PD Date: November 18, 2024
Tskitilne co m plexion races while denying Black race the same/similar exclusive
use of taxpayers’ money for socio-economic advancement.” [Id. at 12.]

Plaintiff alleges that the concept of the U.S. government paying
reparations for wrongs it has committed is not a new one. [Id. at 14.] In
1980, the U.S. Supreme Court awarded the Sioux Nation a $100 million
judgment for land that the government took from them in 1877. [Id.]
Plaintiff also alleges that a class action was brought against the U.S.
Treasury Department in 1915 seeking reparations for slavery (citing Johnson
v. McAdoo, 45 App. D. C. 440 (1916)), but it was dismissed because the real
defendant was the United States, and the United States cannot be made a
party to a lawsuit without its consent. [Id. at 17-19.] Plaintiff also alleges
that President Biden, Vice President Harris, and Congress approved $33.2
million in 24 new grants to Native Hawaiian educational and community-
based organization entities in Hawaii. [Id. at 20.]

Plaintiff further alleges that Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and
Congressman John Conyers introduced legislation H.R. 3745, which aimed to
create the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans
Act; however, the reparation bills are stuck in government examination
mode. [Id. at 21-24.]

Plaintiff alleges the following injuries: discrimination (denied
reparations because of Black race, dark complexion, and national origin);
intentional infliction of emotional distress (forced to live in impoverished
conditions); pain and suffering (mental and verbal abuse); fraudulent
concealment of earned wages (Department of Treasury maintains seized 68
million funds from racketeering and concealed illegal funds under the
disguise as equitable U.S. property); loss of concealed wages use (freed slaves
and descendants denied use of wages from indentured servants’ labor); denial
of government job opportunities; and denied use of taxpayers’ funds (Blacks
denied taxpayers funds for reparations and/or aids for socio-economic
advancement). [Id. at 24-25.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Germaine James v. United States of America
Case No. 2:24-cv-07745-MEMF-PD Date: November 18, 2024
TIIitIl.e D i s cussion

A. Plaintiff Cannot Represent the Interests of a Class

First, because Plaintiff is not represented by counsel and is proceeding
pro se, Plaintiff may not properly represent a class. Courts have generally
concluded that a purported class representative who proceeds pro se cannot
represent the interests of the class because she will not provide adequate
representation for the class as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a)(4). See McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966)
(affirming the dismissal of a class action for lack of jurisdiction because a pro
se plaintiff “has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than
himself”). This follows from the legal principle that pro se litigants can
represent themselves, but themselves only. Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546
F.3d 661, 664–64 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying the “general rule prohibiting pro
se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative
capacity” including class actions); Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874,
876 (9th Cir. 1997) (“While a non-attorney may appear pro se on his own
behalf, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.”
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Accordingly, Plaintiff may
not pursue this action as a class action.

B. Sovereign Immunity

A district court cannot hear a suit against the United States unless the
government has waived sovereign immunity. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471,
475 (1994). “Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature,” meaning that a
party’s failure to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity is properly
resolved on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
Rule 12(b)(1). Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir. 2009);
Sierra Club v. Whitman, 268 F.3d 898, 905-06 (9th Cir. 2001).
1. Federal Tort Claims Act
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Germaine James v. United States of America
Case No. 2:24-cv-07745-MEMF-PD Date: November 18, 2024
Title H e re, Plaintiff seeks reparations from Defendant United States for
harms suffered due to slavery. [Dkt. No. 1.] Plaintiff alleges claims for
discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, pain and
suffering, fraudulent concealment of earned wages, loss of concealed wages
use, denial of government job opportunities, and denied use of taxpayers’
funds. [Id. at 24-25.] Plaintiff seeks relief in excess of $654 billion dollars.
Plaintiff’s claims appear to arise under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”)
because Plaintiff brings a civil action seeking money damages for injuries
allegedly caused by the United States. [Id. at 1-25.]

The FTCA authorizes civil suits against the United States “for money
damages ... for injury or loss of property, or personal injury ... caused by the
negligent or wrongful act ... of the Government.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The
Act operates as a limited waiver of sovereign immunity from suits for
negligent or wrongful acts of government employees. Gonzalez v. United
States, 814 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 2016).

Here, there is no indication that Plaintiff filed any administrative
claim, which is a prerequisite to a suit under the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2675(a) (“[T]he claimant shall have first presented the claim to the
appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by
the agency.”). If a plaintiff does not exhaust administrative remedies, the
[FTCA] suit is barred.” Nguyen v. United States, 2022 WL 822435, at *2 (N.D.
Cal. Jan. 11, 2022) (citation omitted). Thus, absent any prior administrative
claim seeking money damages for the same injuries as alleged in the
Complaint, the Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims arising
under the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (“action shall not be instituted
upon a claim against the United States ... unless the claimant shall have first
presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency”). Failure to comply
destroys subject matter jurisdiction over the entire cause of action. See
Banks-Reed v. United States, 2024 WL 3049448, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 17,
2024). Accordingly, dismissal is appropriate for failure to comply with the
jurisdictional prerequisite of 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); See also Cato v. United
States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A]t the end of the day no
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Germaine James v. United States of America
Case No. 2:24-cv-07745-MEMF-PD Date: November 18, 2024
Tjuitrlies di c t i on would lie, and no claim for relief would be stated, even were the
complaint to be amended along the lines proposed and even if an
administrative claim could be filed with some government agency as required
by § 2675(a) of the FTCA”).

Additionally, the waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions against
the government in the FTCA is limited to claims accruing on and after
January 1, 1945. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b); see also Cato, 70 F.3d at 1106.
Specifically, § 1346(b) provides:

[T]he district courts ... shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions
on claims against the United States, for money damages, accruing on
and after January 1, 1945, for injury or loss of property, or personal
injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of
any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his
office or employment, under circumstances where the United States,
if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with
the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.

As noted above, the injuries alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint accrued
long before 1945 — before the FTCA created any limited waiver of sovereign
immunity. [See Dkt. No. 1.] As the Ninth Circuit explained in Cato, “claims
arising out of the fact of slavery ... and other offenses to [plaintiff's] ancestors
that occurred prior to 1945 or were not pursued within two years of their
accrual, fall outside the FTCA’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity.” Cato,
70 F.3d at 1107; see also Cavness v. United States, 2016 WL 6822072, at *1
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2016) (“Moreover, the claim arises from actions or
omissions of the framers of the Constitution that occurred well before FTCA's
operative date of January 1, 1945”) (citing Cato, 70 F.3d at 1107); Jenkins v.
United States, 2021 WL 5826467, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2021), report and
recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 159032 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2022)
(dismissing a claim for slavery reparations because they were barred by 28
U.S.C. § 2401(a)); see also Thompson v. United States, 2021 WL 4555765, at
*2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 16, 2021) (finding plaintiff's claim for reparations against
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Germaine James v. United States of America
Case No. 2:24-cv-07745-MEMF-PD Date: November 18, 2024
TUintliet ed S tates for slavery of his ancestors barred by sovereign immunity),
report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 4552454 (D. Ariz. Oct. 5,
2021).

C. Statute of Limitations

Further, to the extent Plaintiff seeks reparations from the United
States for slavery, this claim is time barred. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) provides, in
pertinent part, that “every civil action commenced against the United States
shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of
action first accrues.” A right of action normally accrues at the time the
underlying events occurred. Powell v. United States, 1994 WL 16180202, at
*1 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 20, 1994). Here, the underlying events causing the harms
alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint transpired more than six years ago. As such,
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Powell, 1994 WL
16180202, at *1 (finding plaintiff's claims against the United States seeking
reparations for harms suffered because of slavery barred by statute of
limitations); Davis v. United States, 2012 WL 1836310, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May
21, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 2884806 (N.D. Cal.
July 12, 2012) (finding plaintiff's claims for reparations from United States
for condoning slavery time barred).

D. Other Causes of Action

Construing the Complaint liberally, it appears that Plaintiff seeks to
bring claims arising out of Bivens and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Dkt. No. 1 at 3-4
(references to Bivens and 42 U.S.C. § 1983).] However, the United States has
not waived its sovereign immunity for claims pursuant to Bivens. See Rivera
v. United States, 924 F.2d 948, 951 (9th Cir. 1991) (“The courts lack subject
matter jurisdiction to hear constitutional damage claims against the United
States because the United States has not waived sovereign immunity with
respect to [Constitutional damage claims].”) (citation omitted); see also
Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 538 F.3d 1250, 1257 (9th Cir. 2008)
(“[N]o Bivens-like cause of action is available against federal agencies or
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Germaine James v. United States of America
Case No. 2:24-cv-07745-MEMF-PD Date: November 18, 2024
Tfeidtleer a l a g ents sued in their official capacities.”) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, Plaintiff may not raise a federal civil right claim pursuant to
Bivens, and dismissal of any such claim is appropriate. See Locke v. United
States, 2021 WL 1255195, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2021) (dismissing Bivens
claim against the United States pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)).

As to any potential § 1983 claim, the statute provides a cause of action
against persons acting under State law, which, “by its very terms, § 1983
precludes liability in federal government actors.” Morse v. North Coast
Opportunities, Inc., 118 F.3d 1338, 1343 (9th Cir. 1997); see Ibrahim, 538
F.3d at 1257 (“Section 1983 only provides a remedy against persons acting
under color of state law”).

E. Order

Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not
recommend that the Complaint be dismissed for failure to state actionable
claims.

To discharge and satisfy this order, Plaintiff can either:

(1) File a first amended complaint (“FAC”), which would entirely
supersede the Complaint, if Plaintiff can cure the legal deficiencies
outlined in this Order. Plaintiff is advised that a FAC would entirely
replace the Complaint in this action. Further, any amended complaint
must:

(a) be labeled “First Amended Complaint”;
(b) be complete in and of itself and not refer in any manner to prior
complaints, i.e., it must include all of the claims on which Plaintiff
seeks to proceed, Local Rule 15-2;
(c) contain a “short plain” statement of the claim(s) for relief, see Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a);
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Germaine James v. United States of America
Case No. 2:24-cv-07745-MEMF-PD Date: November 18, 2024
Title ( d ) make each allegation “simple, concise and direct,” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(d)(1);
(e) make allegations in numbered paragraphs, “each limited as far as
practicable to a single set of circumstances,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b);
(f) set forth clearly the sequence of events (including specific relevant
dates) which allegedly gives rise to the claim(s) for relief, including
what each defendant did and how each specific defendant’s conduct
injured each specific plaintiff; and
(g) not add defendants or claims without leave of court.
or

(2) Voluntarily dismiss the action—without prejudice to refiling later if
justified—using the attached form CV-09.

Plaintiff must do one of these things by no later than December 16,
2024. If, given the contents of this Order, Plaintiff elects not to proceed in
this action, Plaintiff may expedite matters by signing and returning the
attached Notice of Dismissal by December 16, 2024, which will result in the
voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.

Plaintiff is cautioned that, absent further order of the Court, Plaintiff’s
failure to timely file a First Amended Complaint or Notice of Dismissal may
result in the dismissal of this action with or without prejudice on the grounds
above or for failure to diligently prosecute.

Finally, the Clerk is directed to provide a Central District of California
Civil Rights Complaint Form, CV-66, to Plaintiff to facilitate filing of a First
Amended Complaint if Plaintiff elects to proceed in that fashion.

Attachments:
--Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (CV-09)
--Civil Rights Complaint Form (CV-66)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10747635. Public record. Not legal advice.