Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-2017 SECTION "T"(5)
October 15, 2002
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed on behalf of the defendant, the United States Supreme Court, et al. The Court having reviewed the memoranda filed and considered the law and applicable jurisprudence, is fully advised in the premises and ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
I. BACKGROUND: Pro se Plaintiff Richard Muzzi first sued his former employer, Cimarron Software Services, Inc., and DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Company for whom Cimarron was acting as a subcontractor, for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disability Act. Muzzi also sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana and allotted to Judge A.J. McNamara. On March 22, 2000, the court dismissed the case against the EEOC. On September 25, 2000, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on March 13, 2001. On October 1, 2001, the United States Supreme Court denied Muzzi's request for certiorari.
On February 4, 2002, Muzzi, acting pro se, filed a case against the United States Government asserting that his constitutional rights were violated by the federal judicial process when his case was dismissed on a motion for summary judgment. The government's subsequent motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was granted on May 9, 2002.
The Plaintiff's present complaint alleges that he was harmed by the unconstitutional laws passed by the United States Congress, by the misinterpretation and the misapplication of the laws by the federal courts, and by statements made by the judges presiding over his case. He prays for the reinterpretation of the laws and the restructuring of the courts and judiciary powers. He also prays for the changing of the jurisdiction of each appeals court, and for compensation of at least $23.00.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS:
A. Law on Rule 12(b)(6) motions:
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), courts have found that dismissal pursuant to this provision "is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted." Lowery v. Texas AM University System, 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997); Kaiser Aluminum Chem. Sales v. Avondale Shipyards, 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982). The complaint must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, and all facts pleaded in the original complaint must be taken as true. Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, 781 F.2d 440, 442 (5th Cir. 1980). A district court may not dismiss a complaint under FRCP 12(b)(6) "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Blackburn v. Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). The Fifth Circuit defines this strict standard as, "The question therefore is whether in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief."Lowrey, 117 F.3d at 247, citing 5 Charles A. Wright Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1357, at 601 (1969).
B. Liability of the Defendants
The Supreme Court has held that absent a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Federal Government is immune from suit. Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 554, 108 S.Ct. 1965, 1968 (1988), citing United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S.Ct. 767, 769 (1941). The capacity of an entity to sue or be sued "shall be determined by the law of the state in which the district court is held." Fed.R.Civ.P., Rule 17(b). Under Louisiana law, to possess such a capacity, an entity must qualify as a "juridical person." A juridical person is "an entity to which the law attributes personality, such as a corporation or partnership." La. Civ. Code, Art. 24.
The defendants herein are the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. As the defendants correctly state, they are entities created by the U.S. Constitution, and none are attributed a separate and distinct legal existence. Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to assert his claims against suable entities.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that defendants Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the claims of the plaintiff, Richard Muzzi, are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.