Hebert v. United States
| Decision Date | 16 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-00545 |
| Parties | JOHN KEITH HEBERT, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Louisiana |
Plaintiffs John Keith Hebert and International Defense Corporation, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a lengthy complaint against several defendants. The complaint was screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to determine whether the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This Court also undertook a sua sponte review of the court's subject-matter jurisdiction over this action and its personal jurisdiction over the defendants. For the following reasons, counsel shall enroll for International Defense Corporation and the plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint not later than May 15, 2021.
The plaintiffs alleged that John Keith Hebert is the president of International Defense Corporation. They alleged that Mr. Hebert and his company entered into an independent contractor service agreement with certain defendants and entered into an independent subcontractor service agreement with the United States Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"). The plaintiffs alleged that, under both contracts, they provided private security services in Afghanistan. The plaintiffs alleged that several of the defendants failed to comply with the terms of the contracts by, among other things, torturing Mr. Hebert in May 2014 while he was in Afghanistan, allegedly because he was a whistleblower concerning criminal activity. The allegations set forth in the complaint are rambling and disjointed, and the alleged torture seems to have taken the form of trying to prevent Mr. Hebert from continuing to work in Afghanistan and denying him permission to drive while he was working there.
The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Hebert treated with a psychologist while in Afghanistan and was diagnosed with unspecified anxiety disorder. They alleged that he continued to treat with mental health professionals after he returned home to Las Vegas. The plaintiffs alleged that members of the North Las Vegas Police Department and the CIA office in Las Vegas assaulted Mr. Hebert with deadly weapons when he returned home from Afghanistan in October 2015, and they alleged that he was also assaulted by some of his neighbors.
The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Hebert sought compensation under the Defense Base Act for the injuries he sustained due to being tortured in Afghanistan. He was allegedly represented in that proceeding by attorney William David Turley of the Turley Law Firm. In February 2018, Administrative Law Judge Jennifer Gee in San Francisco allegedly denied Mr. Hebert's claim.
The plaintiffs claim that Mr. Hebert's health and finances were negatively impacted by his being tortured in Afghanistan. In this lawsuit, they sued twenty-five defendants and asserted a variety of claims.
A pro se litigant's pleadings are construed liberally1 and held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."2 However, a pro se 3 Furthermore, a pro se plaintiff must also abide by the rules that govern federal courts4 and properly plead sufficient facts that, when liberally construed, state a plausible claim to relief.5 A court may dismiss a plaintiff's claims on its own motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim so long as the plaintiff has notice of the court's intentionto do so and an opportunity to respond.6 However, a court should generally allow a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint before dismissing it for failure to state a claim.7
The statute governing appearances in federal court8 has been interpreted to mean that fictional legal persons such as corporations and partnerships cannot appear for themselves personally; instead, they must be represented by legal counsel.9 The same rule applies to limited liability companies10 and trusts.11 Thus, a corporation can enter an appearance in a federal district court only through an attorney admitted to practice before the court.12 This is true even when the person seeking to representthe corporation is its president and major stockholder.13 Therefore, International must be represented by counsel in order to proceed with this lawsuit.
When a corporation appears in court without counsel, the court is required to warn the corporation that it must obtain counsel and afford it the opportunity to cure this defect before striking its pleadings.14 Accordingly, International will be ordered to obtain counsel. International's failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of International's claims.
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only the power authorized by the Constitution and by statute.15 Federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction only over civil actions presenting a federal question16 and those in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs and the parties are citizens of different states.17 A suit is presumed to lie outside a federal court's jurisdiction until the party invoking federal-court jurisdictionestablishes otherwise.18 Absent subject-matter jurisdiction, a federal court has no power to adjudicate claims.19
20 "If the court determines. . . that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."21 A district court may dismiss a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the basis of the complaint alone.22
The party asserting federal jurisdiction has the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence.23 Accordingly, the plaintiffs must bear that burden in this case.
The plaintiffs alleged that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction because their claims arise under federal law. "A suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of actionshows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution."24 "The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 'well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint."25 In other words, federal-question jurisdiction "exists when 'a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.'"26 Generally, a suit arises under federal law for purposes of establishing federal-question jurisdiction if there appears on the face of the complaint some substantial, disputed question of federal law.27 A pro se complaint must comply with the well-pleaded complaint rule.28
In their complaint, the plaintiffs expressly alleged that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction based on a federal question arising under (1) statutes addressing treason, sedition, and subversive activities, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2381-2391; (2) the Communist Control Law and legislative findings of fact and declarations of necessity, 50 U.S.C. §§ 841-844; (3) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968; (4) statutes addressing civil rights violations, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986; and (5) Law of War § 18.16, which addresses compensation for violations of the law of war. But none of these is a valid source of subject-matter jurisdiction in this case.
The plaintiffs claim that the defendants engaged in treasonous and seditious conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2381-2391. These are criminal statutes. Criminal statutes generally do not create a private right of action; therefore, there must be a statutory basis for a private right of action to exist under a criminal statute.29 Further, a private citizen has no constitutional right to have someone criminally prosecuted.30 "[D]ecisions whether to prosecute or file criminal charges are generally within the prosecutor's discretion, and, as a private citizen, [a plaintiff]has no standing to institute a federal criminal prosecution and no power to enforce a criminal statute."31 More particularly, there is no private right of action regarding treason claims nor can a private individual cause a treason prosecution.32 Therefore, these claims do not support the exercise of federal question jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs' complaint attempts to assert a claim under Communist control legislation, 50 U.S.C. § 841, et seq., which states that a person who knowingly and willfully becomes a member of the Communist Party is subject to the Internal Security Act of 1950, 8 U.S.C. § 156. The Internal Security Act has to do with the deportation of aliens.33 The plaintiffs did not identify any statutory provision creating a private right of action related to these statutes nor did they identify any aliens who might be subject to deportation. Therefore, the plaintiffs' citation to these statutes does not support the exercise of federal question jurisdiction.
The Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") has both criminal and civil components.34 "RICO affords a private right of action only to a plaintiff who can show that he or she has been injured 'by reason of' a violation of RICO's criminal prohibitions."35 A civil RICO claim requires proof of three...
To continue reading
Request your trial