Source: https://tr.scribd.com/document/2713414/Littlejohn-v-International-Court-of-Justice-et-al-Document-No-9
Timestamp: 2019-07-19 10:20:20
Document Index: 13378772

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 636', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1602', '§ 1350', '§ 287', '§ 1915', '§ 636', '§ 636']

Littlejohn v. International Court of Justice et al - Document No. 9 | Complaint | Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending 1 Complaint filed by Quintin Littlejohn be dismissed without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 2/22/2007. Signed by Judge William M Catoe on 2/1/07. (ladd, ) 7:2007cv00255 South Carolina District Court
saveSave Littlejohn v. International Court of Justice et al... For Later
Mosley et al v. Paulk - Document No. 4
Green et al v. Verhaeghe et al - Document No. 4
Littlejohn v. International Court of Justice et al Doc.
7:07-cv-00255-RBH Date Filed 02/01/2007 Entry Number 9 Page 1 of 13
Quintin M . Littlejohn, ) C/A No. 7:07-0255-RBH-WM C
International Court of Justice, The Peace Palace,)
The plaintiff is a resident of Gaffney, South Carolina. The plaintiff is
under an order of pre-filing review. See Graham v. Riddle, 554 F.2d 133,
134-135 & n. * (4th Cir. 1977).1 The plaintiff was confined in the South
Carolina Department of Corrections until May of 2003, when he “maxed out”
his sentence for his 1982 conviction for armed robbery entered in the Court
The order of pre-filing review was entered on July 10, 1998, by the Honorable G. Ross
Anderson, Jr., United States District Judge, in Quintin Littlejohn v. W illiam J. Clinton, President
of the United States, Civil Action No. 6:98-1169-13AK. Judge Anderson’s order authorizes the
Clerk’s Office to assign civil action numbers to the plaintiff’s pleadings for docket control
7:07-cv-00255-RBH Date Filed 02/01/2007 Entry Number 9 Page 2 of 13
of General Sessions for Cherokee County. Prior to his most recent current
incarceration at the Cherokee County Detention Center, the plaintiff resided
in Gaffney, South Carolina.2 It can be judicially noticed that the plaintiff was
confined at the Cherokee County Detention Center until the week ending
January 26, 2007. See pleadings in Littlejohn v. Crocker, Civil Action No.
6:07-0221-RBH-WMC, which was habeas corpus action.
In the above-captioned case, the plaintiff has brought suit against the
International Court of Justice and its building, the Peace Palace,3 in The
See pleadings in Quintin Littlejohn v. David Edwards Toyota; Mark Edwards; and All
Agents in Active Concert, Civil Action No. 7:06-1012-RBH-W MC. This court may take judicial
notice of Civil Action No. 7:06-1012-RBH-W MC. Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Francine
Co., 425 F.2d 1295, 1296 (5th Cir. 1970). See also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d
1236, 1239, 1989 U.S.App. LEXIS® 16328 (4th Cir. 1989)(“W e note that ‘the most frequent
use of judicial notice is in noticing the content of court records.’”); Mann v. Peoples First
National Bank & Trust Co., 209 F.2d 570, 572 (4th Cir. 1954)(approving district court’s taking
judicial notice of prior suit with same parties: “W e think that the judge below was correct in
holding that he could take judicial notice of the proceedings had before him in the prior suit to
which Mann and the Distilling Company as well as the bank were parties.”); and United States
v. Parker, 956 F.2d 169, 171, 1992 U.S.App. LEXIS® 1319 (8th Cir. 1992).
The “Peace Palace” was paid for by funds contributed by American philanthropist Andrew
Since the initial organization of the Academy had a strong French flavor,
this switch may seem surprising. I attribute it primarily to the strong legacy left
by Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919). I digress briefly to touch the main points of
the argument. At the beginning of the 20th century, Carnegie was the richest
man on the planet, having sold his steel company for $250 million, equivalent
today to about $5 billion. Tired of creating wealth, he decided to spend his
remaining years trying to donate it to worthy causes. W orld peace became one
of those causes.
7:07-cv-00255-RBH Date Filed 02/01/2007 Entry Number 9 Page 3 of 13
Hague, a city in The Netherlands. In the “STATEMENT OF CLAIM” portion
of the complaint, the plaintiff refers to his often-used acronym: “K-DLLL
(Kosovo Doctrine Littlejohn Litigation and Law).”4 The plaintiff alleges that
former President William Jefferson Clinton “stole” the plaintiff’s agenda. The
plaintiff also refers to his prior litigation against Hillary Rodham Clinton, who
is now a United States Senator and presidential candidate; prior litigation
against then-South Carolina Attorney General Charles M. Condon; his prior
attempt to appeal his state court convictions for armed robbery to the
International Court of Justice; and his state court litigation under Al-Shabazz
In 1904, Carnegie donated $1.5 million to a Dutch entity, the Carnegie
Foundation, to build a "temple of peace" for the PCA. The stone-laying
ceremony occurred during the Second Hague Peace Conference in 1907 and
the building opened in 1913 with Carnegie present. In 1922, the Peace Palace
also became home to the Permanent Court of International Justice and in 1923
the Hague Academy of International Law, created in 1914. Funding to support
this Academy came from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in
W ashington[.]
David S. Clark, American Participation in the Development of the International Academy of
Comparative Law and its First Two Hague Congresses, 54 Am. J. Comp. L. 1, 9-10
See also pleadings in Quintin Littlejohn v. Bill Clinton, et al., Civil Action No.
6:01-2285-13AK, where in the plaintiff, in response to a Special Interrogatory from this court,
also explained what the acronym “K-DLLL” meant: “Kosovo Doctrine Littlejohn Litigation Law.”
7:07-cv-00255-RBH Date Filed 02/01/2007 Entry Number 9 Page 4 of 13
v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742, 1999 S.C. LEXIS® 217,5 (2000). In
his prayer for relief, the plaintiff seeks “Injunctive Relief to the extent of all the
wealth of the litigation” previously filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also
appears to be requesting that money be held in the Municipal Court for the
Town of Gaffney.
review has been made of the pro se pleadings and the Form AO 240 (motion
to proceed in forma pauperis) pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915. The review6 has been conducted in light of the following
324-325, 104 L.Ed.2d 338, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1989 U.S. LEXIS® 2231 (1989);
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House
The Lexis® Service has given the opinion on rehearing a calendar year 1999 citation, not
a citation for calendar year 2000.
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (DSC),
7:07-cv-00255-RBH Date Filed 02/01/2007 Entry Number 9 Page 5 of 13
of Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 1995 U.S.App. LEXIS® 26108 (4th Cir. 1995)(en
banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1177, 134 L.Ed.2d 219, 116 S.Ct. 1273, 1996
U.S. LEXIS® 1844 (1996); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983);
and Boyce v. Alizaduh, 595 F.2d 948 (4th Cir. 1979)(recognizing the district
court’s authority to conduct an initial screening of a pro se filing).7 This court
is required to construe pro se complaints and petitions liberally. Such pro se
complaints and petitions are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by attorneys, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, Leeke v. Gordon, 439 U.S. 970 (1978), and a federal district court is
charged with liberally construing a complaint or petition filed by a pro se
litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 & n. 7 (1980)(per curiam); and Cruz v.
Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972). When a federal court is evaluating a pro se
complaint or petition, the plaintiff's or petitioner's allegations are assumed to
be true. Fine v. City of New York, 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2nd Cir. 1975). Even
under this less stringent standard, the complaint is subject to summary
merit sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)],
as “frivolous”).
7:07-cv-00255-RBH Date Filed 02/01/2007 Entry Number 9 Page 6 of 13
dismissal. The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the
court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth
a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Department
of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387, 1990 U.S.App. LEXIS® 6120 (4th Cir.
The International Court of Justice “is a [j]udicial arm of the United
Nations." Black's Law Dictionary, (fifth edition, 1979), at page 732. The
* * * has jurisdiction to give advisory opinions on matters of law
and treaty construction when requested by the General
Assembly, Security Council or any international agency
authorized by the General Assembly to petition for such opinion.
It has jurisdiction, also, to settle legal disputes between nations
when voluntarily submitted to it. Its judgments may be enforced
by the Security Council. Its jurisdiction and powers are defined
by statute, to which all member states of the U.N. [United
Nations] are parties. Judges of such court are elected by the
General Assembly and Security Council of the U.N.
See also Vera Gowlland-Debbas, The Relationship between the International
Court of Justice and the Security Council in Light of the Lockerbie Case, 88
Am. J. Int'l L. 643 (October 1994)("The relationship between the International
Court of Justice and the Security Council may be approached from the
perspective of the United Nations Charter and the way it delimits
competences between two principal UN organs and regulates the exercise
7:07-cv-00255-RBH Date Filed 02/01/2007 Entry Number 9 Page 7 of 13
of their concurrent powers."); Taslim O. Elias, The International Court of
Justice and Some Contemporary Problems (1979); Josh Briggs, Comment,
Sur Place Refugee Status in the Context of Vietnamese Asylum Seekers in
Hong Kong, 42 Am. U. L. Rev. 433, 457 (Winter 1993); and Gregory Gelfand,
International Penal Transfer Treaties: The Case for an Unrestricted
Multilateral Treaty, 64 Boston U. L. Rev. 563, 568 & n. 17 (May 1984). The
International Court of Justice is the successor to the Permanent Court of
International Justice. See Gowlland-Debbas, The Relationship between the
International Court of Justice and the Security Council in Light of the
Lockerbie Case, supra, 88 Am. J. Int'l L. at 643 n. 1 ("By contrast, the
Permanent Court of International Justice, though closely related to the
League of Nations, was independent of it.").
The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction over
criminal cases and collateral attacks on convictions. See, e.g., Questions of
Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from
the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. U.K.), 1992 I.C.J. 3, 15 (1992); and
Jeffrey J. Carlisle, Extradition of Governments as a Municipal Law Remedy
for State-Sponsored Kidnapping, 81 Cal. L. Rev. 1541, 1547-1572 & n. 171
(December 1993). The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is
7:07-cv-00255-RBH Date Filed 02/01/2007 Entry Number 9 Page 8 of 13
limited to disputes between nations. See United States v. Maine, 475 U.S.
89, 99 (1986), citing the Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway), 1951
I.C.J. 116 (1951). See also Daphne Barak-Erez, Israel: The Security
Barrier—Between International Law, Constitutional Law, and Domestic
Judicial Review, 4 Int'l J. Const. L. 540 (July 2006)(discussing various court
opinions, including ICJ advisory opinion, on construction of Israel’s security
barrier in Judea and Samaria). But see Firew Kebede Tiba, What Caused
the Multiplicity of International Courts and Tribunals, Gonz. J. Int'l L. 202
It should also be noted that the above-captioned case is barred by the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (as amended), 28 U.S.C. § 1602
et seq., because the International Court of Justice is part of the United
Nations. See, e.g., Hirsh v. State of Israel and State of Germany, 962
F. Supp. 377, 1997 U.S.Dist. LEXIS® 4406 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), affirmed without
opinion, 133 F.3d 907, 1997 U.S.App. LEXIS® 36435, 1997 WESTLAW®
(2nd Cir., December 31, 1997), cert. denied sub nomine, Berkowitz v. Israel,
523 U.S. 1062, 140 L.Ed.2d 651, 118 S.Ct. 1392, 1998 U.S. LEXIS® 2359
(1998). Furthermore, the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, does not
provide a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign.
7:07-cv-00255-RBH Date Filed 02/01/2007 Entry Number 9 Page 9 of 13
Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 102
L.Ed.2d 818, 109 S.Ct. 683, 1989 U.S. LEXIS® 581 (1989)(generally, foreign
nations are immune from suit in the United States for non-commercial,
"public" acts).
Moreover, no state or federal court can issue process against the
United Nations and any of its component agencies or bodies by virtue of the
location of the United Nations Headquarters in New York City. See Curran
v. City of New York, 191 Misc. 229, 77 N.Y.S.2d 206 (Supreme Court,
Queens County, 1947)(International Organizations Immunities Act precludes
suits against the United Nations; grant of public lands in New York City to the
United Nations and exempting such lands from taxation were valid), affirmed,
275 A.D. 784, 88 N.Y.2d 924 (App.Div. 1949); and Bert B. Lockwood, The
United Nations Charter and United States Civil Rights Litigation: 1946, 1955,
69 Iowa L. Rev. 901 (May 1984)(discussing U.N. “Headquarters Agreement”
[22 U.S.C. § 287] between United States and the United Nations), which
cites, inter alia, Comment, The United Nations Under American Municipal
Law: A Preliminary Assessment, 77 Yale L. J. 778 (1946), and Ling, A
Comparative Study of the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations
7:07-cv-00255-RBH Date Filed 02/01/2007 Entry Number 9 Page 10 of 13
Member Representatives and Officials with the Traditional Privileges and
Immunities of Diplomatic Agents, 33 Washington & Lee L. Rev. 91 (1976).
Insofar as the plaintiff is complaining about the foreign policy of the
United States, this case is subject to summary dismissal under the “political
question” doctrine. Under the "political question" doctrine, the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina cannot address the plaintiff's
claims relating to an alliance or alliances of the United States, its foreign
policy toward other nations and international organizations, or matters
handled by the United Nations Security Council or the International Court of
Justice. Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996, 1002-1006 (1979). The "political
question" doctrine discountenances judicial interference with certain types
of cases involving the other branches of the Government of the United
States. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211 (1962). See also Dellums v. Bush,
752 F. Supp. 1141, 1990 U.S.Dist. LEXIS® 16611 (D.D.C. 1990); and Eckert
International v. Government of the Sovereign Democratic Republic of Fiji,
834 F. Supp. 167, 171, 1993 U.S.Dist. LEXIS® 13604 (E.D.Va.
1993)(purpose of "political question" doctrine is "to prevent judicial
pronouncements that would disrupt this country's foreign relations"), affirmed,
Eckert International v. Government of the Sovereign Democratic Republic of
7:07-cv-00255-RBH Date Filed 02/01/2007 Entry Number 9 Page 11 of 13
Fiji, 32 F.3d 77, 1994 U.S.App. LEXIS® 20704 (4th Cir. 1994). Cf. Flast v.
Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 97 (1968)(federal judicial power usually limited to
disputes capable of being resolved through judicial process); and FCC v.
Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 735 (1978)("[F]ederal courts have never
been empowered to issue advisory opinions.").
Accordingly, it is recommended that the District Court summarily
dismiss the above-captioned case without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process. See Denton v. Hernandez, supra; Neitzke v.
Williams, supra; Haines v. Kerner, supra; Brown v. Briscoe, 998 F.2d 201,
202-204 & n. * (4th Cir. 1993), replacing unpublished opinion originally tabled
at 993 F.2d 1535 (4th Cir. 1993); Boyce v. Alizaduh, supra; Todd v.
Baskerville, supra, 712 F.2d at 74; and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)[essentially
a redesignation of "old" 1915(d)]. See also In Re Prison Litigation Reform
Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134, 1997 U.S.App. LEXIS® 1763 (6th Cir.
1997)(pleadings by non-prisoners should also be screened); and Fitzgerald
v. First East Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-364, 2000
7:07-cv-00255-RBH Date Filed 02/01/2007 Entry Number 9 Page 12 of 13
U.S.App. LEXIS® 18180 (2nd Cir. 2000)(“District courts . . . are . . . capable
of determining when an action is frivolous. Indeed, as courts of first
instance, district courts are especially likely to be exposed to frivolous
actions, and thus have an even greater need for inherent authority to dismiss
such actions quickly in order to preserve scarce judicial resources.”). The
plaintiff’s attention is directed to the Notice on the next page.
February 1, 2007 s/William M. Catoe
Greenville, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge
7:07-cv-00255-RBH Date Filed 02/01/2007 Entry Number 9 Page 13 of 13
The plaintiff is advised that he may file specific written objections to this
Report and Recommendation with the District Court Judge. Objections must
specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to
which objections are made and the basis for such objections. In the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court judge need not conduct a
de novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005).
Specific written objections must be filed within ten (10) days of the date
of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The time calculation of this ten-day period excludes
weekends and holidays and provides for an additional three (3) days for filing
by mail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) & (e). Filing by mail pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5
may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and
Recommendation will result in the waiver of the right to appeal from a
judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, Schronce v. United States, 467
U.S. 1208 (1984); and Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985).
Documents Similar To Littlejohn v. International Court of Justice et al - Document No. 9
icool922
Burns v. Gray, 10th Cir. (1997)