United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
ZYRONIA P. MIMS, Plaintiff,
U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, Defendant.
D. PETERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff Zyronia P. Mims has filed this civil action against
the United States federal government. Because Mims is
proceeding without prepayment of the full filing fee, her
complaint must be screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
to determine whether any portion 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. Mims is a pro se litigant, so I must read her
complaint generously. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 521 (1972) (per curiam).
conclude that Mims's complaint must be dismissed for two
reasons. First, it identifies as the sole defendant the
“U.S. federal government, ” which is generally
immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Second, her claims are based on theories that have no
arguable basis in law.
complaint contains only a few allegations. Under the section
entitled “statement of claim, ” she writes that
she “unknowingly nor willingly was born dead when
parents ap[p]lied for Social Security and Birth certificate.
The reversal of death to life by the open choice of Humans
to choose how and where they live without the U.S. Government
attachment.” Dkt. 1, at 2. Under “relief wanted,
” she says:
Return all property, relics, gold, silver and art affects of
the Hebrew-Israelites that was brought to the U.S. or America
during the South Atlantic Slave Trade along with free travels
to and from homeland of where they were born and to place of
work and new residency. All to have diplomatic [im]munity for
those that are ac[c]om[mo]dating the SAFETY NEST INC.
Id. at 4. Mims also attaches three documents to her
complaint: a notice that she and her organization, The Safety
Nest Inc., are “Foreign Sovereigns” and
“are not subject to Territorial or Municipal United
States law, ” Dkt. 1-1, at 1, and two “affidavits
of sovereignty.” Dkt. 1-2 and Dkt. 1-3.
initial matter, Mims's complaint must be dismissed
because the only defendant it names is the federal
government. Claims against the government are barred by the
doctrine of sovereign immunity, which mandates that the
United States cannot be made subject to suit without its
consent. Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160
(1981). Such consent is conveyed through congressional
action, which “expressly and unequivocally”
waives the government's sovereign immunity. Sossamon
v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277, 290 (2011). Without a valid
congressional waiver of sovereign immunity, I lack subject
matter jurisdiction over Mims's lawsuit.
No. arguable basis in law
Mims had named a defendant that could be sued in this court,
I would nonetheless dismiss her complaint because her claims
lack any arguable basis in law. Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), a court must dismiss any complaint that asserts
claims based on “an indisputably meritless legal
theory.” Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 829
(7th Cir. 2007) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989)).
allegations are cursory and undeveloped, but I take her to be
seeking (1) reparations for the transatlantic slave trade,
and (2) some recognition or validation of her asserted
“sovereign” status. Both of these claims are
barred as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit has ruled that claims seeking reparations for
injuries stemming from the transatlantic slave trade are
outside the power of the federal courts to consider. See
In re African-Am. Slave Descendents Litig., 471 F.3d
754, 759-61 (7th Cir. 2006). And “sovereign
citizen” theories have been rejected repeatedly by the
courts as frivolous and a waste of court resources. See
Bey v. State, 847 F.3d 559, 559-60 (7th Cir. 2017)
claims have no arguable basis in law, and I do not see any
way that Mims could cure these defects by amending her
complaint. So I will dismiss her complaint with prejudice ...