Opinion
Civil Action 22-1720 (UNA)
06-21-2022
SHAMIRA A. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN ELLIOTT BLACK et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Brown alleges that the defendants have violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by violating her “right to work and pursue work in America.” Compl. at 3, Dkt. 1. According to Brown, the defendants “blacklisted” her from future employment with the federal government for having pursued an employment discrimination claim. See id. Among other relief, she demands “restitution of $750,000 for the six years [she has] been unemployed and for various rejections . . . received from . . . federal agencies and private sector [employers]” because Brown had filed an employment discrimination claim. Id. at 4. Plaintiff's claim fails because the Declaration does not provide for a private right of action. See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734 (2004) (“[T]he Declaration does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law.”); Vizi v. Outback Steakhouse, 672 Fed.Appx. 168, 171 n.1 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (finding that “Universal Declaration of Human Rights . . . is a nonbinding declaration that provides no private rights of action”); Konar v. Illinois, 327 Fed.Appx. 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2009) (finding that appellant “cannot state a claim under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Vienna Declaration because both are non-binding declarations that provide no private rights of action”); Perry v. Frederick, No. 22-CV-1973, 2022 WL 1810713, at *1 n.3 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 2022) (recognizing Third Circuit's ruling in United States v. Chatman, 351 Fed.Appx. 740, 741 (3d Cir. 2009), that “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a non-binding declaration that provides no private rights of action”).
The Court will grant plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and, for the reasons stated above, dismiss the complaint and this civil action. An Order is issued separately.