““Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.’” (quoting EDLC. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994)). The Complaint makes fleeting references to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”
How later courts described this case
- ““Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.’” (quoting EDLC. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994)). The Complaint makes fleeting references to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”
- sovereign immunity bars suit against the United States either for damages or for injunctive relief requiring government action
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITSEDT ATDEISS TRCIOCUTR T
DISTROIFCN TE WJ ERSEY
KINCGL IFFOJFREFDE RSON,
Plaintiff, CiAvcitli Noo2n.3 -3(9RK8)(6 T JB)
v. MEMORANDOURMD ER
UNITESDT ATFEESD ERAL
GOVERNMEeNatTl ,. ,
Defendants.
KIRSCH, JDuidsgter ict
THSIM ATTREc moe bsefotrheCe o tu urpopnrs oeP laiKnnitgiC ifflf fo Jredrsffnoe's
("Plaiapnptliifctfao'pt )rcie ooe indf no rpmaau p(eI"rFiP Es,CF " No1.-3 )t,oe gthweirth hi s
Comaipnt,l( "Co mp,lE".C F No1.)a g,a iDnesfetn dUanntistS etdaF teeedrsGa olvrnm eenUt.;S .
Fedrea RelesrvSesyt eUm.;SD .e parotfTm eresanrutya ;sw elalso fficeagresn,at nsed,mp loyees
(colletceh"t Dievfeenldy"a, )Fn .ottrhs ree a seoxnpsl abeilnoetwdha, epp lictaopto riceoenId F P
isG RANTEanD dt,eh C omlipatnis D ISMISwSihEt rDep jdcuie.
Unde2r8 U .S§.1 C9.51 a,p laimnat pyirffo c eiendfpoarumpawe ihrtoipusyat i nafig ln ig
feeT .heC ouerntg aiganetw so -satneaplw yhsecinos n sig IdFePar pipnlic"Faristtith,oeC n uostr :
deterwmhientethshpe elr a iinestl iiffgt iopb rloecu ened2de8 Ur . S§.1 C9.1 5.(.a.S).e cotnhde,
Coudrett erwmhientethsheC ero mplsahionbuteld di smiassfrs ievdo olrfoo rufa si ltuosr tea at e
clauipmow nh ircehl miaeybf eg ranatsre edq,u biy2r 8eU d. S.§1C 9.1 5(Aer)c.vh"M.i e er cer
CntyC.o urthNoo2u.3s -e3,25 0523W3,L 5 2078a3t*3 2(, .D N.AJu.g1 .42 ,0 2(3c)i Rtoimnag n
vJ.eff9e0sF4,2. d 1 9129,n4 1. ( 3Cdi 1r9.9 0T)hI)eF. sP t arteuqtueti hraape tls a idnetmioffn strate
financial need through the submission of a complete financial affidavit. See Atl. Cty. Cent. Mun.
Court Inc. v. Bey, No. 24-0105, 2024 WL 1256450, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2024) (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915¢(a)).
Here, Plaintiff sufficiently completed the Long Form Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (See IFP.) Plaintiff lists a total monthly income of $2,500
from unemployment and $2,745 in monthly expenses for rent, utilities, food, clothing, laundry,
medical expenses, transportation, insurance, and recreation. (See id at 2, 4, 5.) The application also
indicates no employment in the last two years, no motor vehicles, no assets in any bank or financial
institution, and no debts. (/d. at 2-3.) Plaintiff also lists two individuals relying on him for support.
at 3.) From this, the Court finds that Plaintiff has pled his circumstances regarding his ability
to pay with sufficient particularity and GRANTS Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application.
This case is one of a myriad of lawsuits the Plaintiff has filed in this District since 2018.!
The subject lawsuit bears a purported seal of the “The Third Temple English Church of England”
with a title of “The Crown Writ Quo Warranto.” (Compl. at 1.) The Complaint asserts claims
against the United States seeking to compel the federal government to adopt the “Gold Standard
as established by Article 1 section 10 Contract clause.” (See generally id.) The United States,
however, is protected from suit under the doctrine of absolute sovereign immunity, See Larson v.
Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 687 (1949) (sovereign immunity bars suit
against the United States either for damages or for injunctive relief requiring government action);
' See El Bey v. State, No. 18-09170; El Bey v. State, No. 18-09171; El Bey v. State, No. 18-09172; El Bey
v. Sheridan, No. 18-14976; El Bey v. Clark, No. 18-15377; Jefferson El Bey V. Credit Acceptance
Corporation, et al., No. 19-10629; Jefferson El Bey v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, et al., No. 19-10726;
Jefferson v. Bank of America, et al., No. 22-04676; Jefferson v. v. LP Hommes LLC, et al., No. 22-05883;
Jefferson v. State, No. 22-06633; Jefferson y. City of New Brunswick, et al., No. 23-01898; Jefferson vy.
Christopher, et al., No, 23-03493; Jefferson v. Bank of America N.A. et al., No. 23-03919; Jefferson v.
Bucca, No. 23-21076; Jefferson v. Wengui, No. 23-23363.
see also Clark v. Sec’y of United States Navy, 102 F.4th 658, 661 (3d Cir. 2024); see also Scott □□
Manenti, No. 15-7213, 2016 WL 80640, at *1 n. 2 (D.N.J. Jan. 7, 2016). “Without a waiver of
sovereign immunity, a court is without subject matter jurisdiction over claims against federal
agencies or officials in their official capacities.” Treasurer of N.J. v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 684
F.3d 382, 395 (3d Cir. 2012). “It is a fundamental principle of sovereign immunity that federal
courts do not have jurisdiction over suits against the United States unless Congress, via a statute,
expressly and unequivocally waives the United States’ immunity to suit.’” United States v. Craig,
694 F.3d 509, 511 (3d Cir. 2012), as modified (Oct. 5, 2012) (quoting U.S. v. Bein, 214 F.3d 408,
412 (3d Cir. 2000)); see also Bah v. United States, 91 F.4th 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2024) (““Absent a
waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.’” (quoting
EDLC. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994)).
The Complaint makes fleeting references to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and its
“limited waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States, permitting citizens to pursue some
tort claims against the federal government.” (See Compl. {§ 1, 30, 43.) Indeed, “[t]he United States
has waived its sovereign immunity in prescribed circumstances in accordance with the FTCA.”
See Dalai v. Molinelli, No. 20-1434, 2021 WL 1208901, at *9 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2021) (citing
Santos v. United States, 559 F.3d 189, 193 (3d Cir. 2009)). To qualify for jurisdiction under the
FTCA, the suit must be:
[1] against the United States, [2] for money damages, . . . [3] for injury or loss of
property, or personal injury or death [4] caused by the negligent or wrongful act or
omission of any employee of the Government [5] while acting within the scope of
his office or employment, [6] 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.
FDIC, 510 US. at 477 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1)) (listing six requirements) (alterations in
original). To be sure, those prerequisites are not met here. There is no “injury of loss of property,
orp ersionnjaoulrdr eya ntohar"n "yc ircumwshteatrnheUce ne istS etdai tafep sr,i vpaetres on,
woubleld i abtlhece l taoii mnaa cncto rwdiattnhhcl eea o wft hpel awchee trheae co tro mission
occurarleldei"gtn eh Cdeo mplTahiunwsti,.t hqouuatl ifofyrti hnwega iovfse orv eriemimgunn ity
undtehFreT CAD,e fendaarnietm sm ufrnoemt hciisvs iuli t.
Beyotnhbdel ajtuarnits ddiecfetcPitlosan,ia nlct liaffismc sl eafrarirevl oyl Hoesu ese.k s
"tcoo mpceolm pltiota hnGceoe lS dt andbaybr rdi"n cgoiunungnt dste hrCe o ntrCalcatuossf e
thUe. SC.on stiatrIut,t.1§i 0 ov;na ,r ious ACcutfrrrsoe mtn h1ce7y 0 0t'hJsea; Ty r eoaf1t 7y9 4;
ancde rtaanitnis ttrauts(utCt oemsap.t1l 1..T )h eC ompleanicnotm paans" siensd isputabl
meriltelgetashlse oMriyr.a"vr .cU nhiiSt teadEt xeesBc r.a nocfth hG eo vN'ot2.,3 -22607233,
WL 8179a2t7* 52( ,3C di Nro.v 2.72 ,0 2(3q)u oDtoionlvge.W y e tz9e5Fl7., 33 d6 367,3 -(734d
Ci2r0.2 0P)l)a.ic natnincffoo tm ptehle oufgs oelo dnt hUe. Sg.o vernmeanntcd,o uhratvse
consisrteejnestcultctyehh d e oars"i celse arly SfreRieav homlEaolvnu F. si .rF"sr ta nFkilni.n
CorNpo.0.,9 -1026020WL29 , 3 8765a0t*6 7(, E .MDi.c Nho.v 1.7 2,0 0(9c)o llecting ca
2
rejescutcaihrn ggu ments).
Fotrh erseea stohCneos m,p liaDsiI nStM ISWSIETDPH R EJUDICE.
AccordIiTIn Sog nlt yh1,i6 ds a oyfD ecem2b0e2r4,,
ORDEREthDPa lta inatpipflfit'copsa r toicoiennfe odr pmaau pieGsrRA iNsT EDa;n d
iitfus r ther
ORDERtEhDPa lta inCtoimfpfli'aDssiI nStM ISwSiEtDh praenijditu fus dr itchee;r
2A st hCiosm pliasci lnetafr rilvyo lporuosv,iP dlianiwgni ttliheff a tvoae m ehnidCs o mplwaoiunblted
futSielGeer .ay svo.Mn ay vieSwt aHtoes p2.9F,3. 31d0 31,1 2-(133Cd i 2r0.0 (2")[ D]isomfi ssals
frivoclloaudisom n sor te qulieratevoa e m ednudte ot hleo ntgr adoifdt einoyni ntgo a mleenadv eu nder
Rul1e5 (wah)e anm endmiesin nte quoirtfu atbillee ."); Thereifosrd ei,s mitwshisiteshd Comp
prejudice.
ORDERED that Defendants shall not be served; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively CLOSE this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum Order on
Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail.
Rosunr KIRSCH oN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE