Another day, another dismissal of a suit against pro se plaintiffs who claim to be sovereign citizens. In this case, the plaintiffs sued seven different defendants, including four different collection operations, with a complaint that was “short on facts and improperly include[d] rambling citations to legal authorities and argument.”
The background: The plaintiff filed a complaint against lenders, auto finance companies, and collection agencies, alleging a wide range of violations tied to debt collection practices.
- Like many sovereign citizen-style filings, the complaint attempted to weave together citations from unrelated statutes and constitutional provisions while providing little in the way of actual facts or connections to the named defendants.
- The judge noted that the plaintiffs tried to assert claims under federal consumer protection laws but failed to establish standing or even articulate a coherent theory of liability.
The ruling: Judge Christina A. Bryan of the District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the case in its entirety.
- Judge Bryan emphasized that the plaintiffs’ filing failed to satisfy the requirements mandating a short and plain statement of the claim showing entitlement to relief.
- Instead of providing factual allegations, the complaint was filled with legal jargon and arguments that the court found improper. Their strategy, according to the judge, was to attempt to relieve themselves of their contractually obligated debt by tendering “some fictional form of payment” and then declaring they were no longer indebted to the defendant.
- Noting that this theory has been “flatly rejected,” Judge Bryan wrote, “to the extent plaintiffs claim they have satisfied a debt through tender of a document they call a ‘restrictive endorsement,’ their claim is frivolous.”
