Case DetailsCase Name: Hamilton v. United StatesCourt Name: District Court, District of ColumbiaDate Published: May 3, 2016Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2016-0831Court Abbreviation: D.D.C.Key Cases Cited Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Dred Scott decision referenced by plaintiff)Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974) (federal courts must dismiss claims that are "so attenuated and unsubstantial" as to be devoid of merit)Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561 (1904) (standard on insubstantial federal questions)United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980) (United States is subject to suit only by consent)FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature)Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (standard for dismissing patently insubstantial federal claims)Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D.D.C. 2011) (district-court dismissal for patently insubstantial federal question)Abou-Hussein v. Mabus, 953 F. Supp. 2d 251 (D.D.C. 2013) (no waiver of sovereign immunity for treble RICO damages)

Civil Action No. 2016-0831 *

|  

D.D.C. | May 3, 2016

Background

Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II, proceeding pro se, sued the United States seeking monetary damages on behalf of himself and his children as purported descendants of Dred Scott.

Complaint alleges constitutional and historical grievances related to slavery and cites the 13th–15th Amendments and Dred Scott decision; requests daily damages calculated from plaintiff's birth and treble damages under RICO.

Plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis; the court granted the IFP application.

The defendant (the United States) faces challenge because the United States consents only to certain suits and sovereign immunity is implicated for some claims.

The court screened the complaint for subject-matter jurisdiction and considered whether the claims presented a substantial federal question and whether sovereign immunity barred the RICO treble-damages request.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held

Whether the complaint presents a substantial federal question sufficient for subject-matter jurisdiction Hamilton frames his claims as federal constitutional and historical injuries (Dred Scott lineage) and seeks federal relief (damages) The complaint is frivolous/insubstantial and presents no cognizable federal question Court held the complaint is patently insubstantial and lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case

Whether the United States waived sovereign immunity for RICO treble damages Hamilton seeks treble damages under RICO against the United States The U.S. has not waived sovereign immunity for RICO treble damages Court held sovereign immunity bars the RICO treble-damages claim

Whether dismissal should be with prejudice Hamilton sought monetary relief; facts and claims defective Government argued jurisdictional defects are fatal