Opinion
22-CV-8504 (LTS)
12-20-2022
MARC PIERRE, attorney in fact, national agent and representative of the Republic of Haiti and Haitian diaspora; DENISE JEAN-JACQUES; ISABELLE PIERRE; SONY LOUIS; JEAN MERISIER; JEAN CHARLOT; BENSE MACKENSON; KHADIJA RAHMN-AKSP; JIMMY MICHEL; MARTHA BRIGARDE; PETERSON JACINTHE; JOLINE CAMILLE, Plaintiffs, v. CONSULATE GENERAL OF HAITI; CORE Group/CORE Group-OAS Trustee Ens Legis UNITED STATES; CORE Group/CORE Group-OAS Trustee France; CORE Group/CORE Group-OAS Trustee Canada; De-facto; Unelected; Transitional Administration of Ariel Henry, Defendants.
ORDER TO AMEND
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Marc Pierre (“Pierre”), who is appearing pro se, brings this action under the Alien Tort Claims Act, seeking “the 20 million USD paid to France in 1888 due to the 1825 Royal Ordinance of Charles X[.]” (ECF 2, at 2.) Pierre styles this action as a class action and seeks this relief on behalf of Haiti. He also includes in the caption of the complaint the names of individual plaintiffs who have not signed the complaint, which is 479 pages long.
By order dated November 4, 2022, the Court granted Pierre's request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the claims brought on behalf of Haiti and the individual plaintiffs and grants Pierre 30 days' leave to assert any claims he wishes to bring on his own behalf.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
BACKGROUND
Pierre brings this action on behalf of: the country of Haiti, an organization called Haiti Reformation Project, and individuals who are citizens of Haiti. He alleges that his claims concern violations that occurred at the International Court of Justice, on the part of the United Nations, as well as other countries and entities, concerning matters involving Haiti. The complaint repeats the same allegations throughout the complaint, including Pierre's allegation that:
This is an action at law to redress the utilization of the UNITED NATIONS by the ens legis UNITED STATES for the deprivation of the rights and privileges of the participants of this class-action under Color of Law . . . and the disenfranchisement of the people of the Republic of USA and Haiti by Washington DC thru the CESTUI QUE VIE Trust and CORE Group/CORE Group OSA Trust.(ECF 2, at 4.)
The use of capitalizations and bold letters are as in the original.
Pierre asserts that he seeks the enforcement of the “Haiti Reformation Project,” an “accord” issued by him on March 26, 2021, which “is based upon Haiti Wiki-Leaks; Unilateral Declaration on Behalf of Haiti dated October 17 of 2018; Petrocaribe scandal and grass-roots movement of Operation Tabula-Rasa.” (Id. at 5.) Pierre and the Haiti Reformation Project “served . . . the U.S. State Dept.; [the former] administration of President Jovenel Moise; the United Nations and the Republic of Venezuela with a request to go to Haiti and investigate the Petrocaribe scandal,” to no avail. (Id. at 6.) He claims, however, that Haitian President Moise, who “had a National Referendum for a new Constitution scheduled for April 25, 2021,” rescheduled the referendum “upon reception of the HAITI REFORMATION PROJECT Tabula-Rasa Accord, to include the Haitian diaspora.” (Id.) Plaintiff concludes that Moise's assassination “was authorized by the Ens Legis UNITED STATES for executing some of the mandates of the HAITI REFORMATION PROJECT/TABULA-RASA ACCORD.” (Id.)
DISCUSSION
A. Claims Brought on Behalf of Others
Although Pierre identifies as an “attorney-in-fact,” as a nonlawyer, he can only represent his own interests. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; U.S. ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[A]n individual who is not licensed as an attorney may not appear on another person's behalf in the other's cause.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1308 (2d Cir. 1991)) (noting that § 1654 “allow[s] two types of representation: ‘that by an attorney admitted to the practice of law by a governmental regulatory body, and that by a person representing himself'”).
Aside from describing Pierre as an attorney-in-fact, the complaint does not suggest that Pierre is licensed to practice law. The Court therefore dismisses without prejudice any claims Pierre is asserting on behalf of Haiti and the individual plaintiffs named in the caption of the complaint, that is: Denise Jean-Jacques; Isabelle Pierre; Sony Louis; Jean Merisier; Jean Charlot; Bense Mackenson; Khadija Rahmn-Aksp; Jimmy Michel; Martha Brigarde; Peterson Jacinthe; Joline Camille.
B. Plaintiff's Claims
Pierre proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Second Circuit has cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)).
Pierre seeks relief under the ATCA, a federal statute that gives district courts “original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350. The complaint does not suggest that Pierre seeks relief on his own behalf or that any defendant violated his rights under the ATCA. Because he is proceeding pro se, however, the Court grants him leave to amend his complaint as follows.
In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant. If Plaintiff has an address for any named defendant, Plaintiff must provide it. Plaintiff should include all of the information in the amended complaint that Plaintiff wants the Court to consider in deciding whether the amended complaint states a claim for relief. That information should include:
a) the names and titles of all relevant people;
b) a description of all relevant events, including what each defendant did or failed to do, the approximate date and time of each event, and the general location where each event occurred;
c) a description of the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and
d) the relief Plaintiff seeks, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief.
Essentially, Plaintiff's amended complaint should tell the Court: who violated his federally protected rights and how; when and where such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Because Plaintiff's amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wants to include from the original complaint must be repeated in the amended complaint.
CONCLUSION
The Court dismisses all claims brought on behalf of Haiti and Denise Jean-Jacques; Isabelle Pierre; Sony Louis; Jean Merisier; Jean Charlot; Bense Mackenson; Khadija Rahmn-Aksp; Jimmy Michel; Martha Brigarde; Peterson Jacinthe; Joline Camille.
The Court grants Plaintiff 30 days' leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 22-CV-8504 (LTS). An Amended Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
SO ORDERED.