Seyed Alireza Amidi Namin filed a pro se complaint against Kevin Jeffrey Vert, alleging that Vert is an identity used by a government 'mafia' to commit wrongdoing. Namin amended his complaint to include claims for civil rights violations, discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, violations of the False Claims Act, and several criminal offenses. Because Namin sought to proceed in forma pauperis, the district court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The district court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, finding that the complaint failed to allege government action for civil rights claims, did not allege discrimination based on a protected status for the Fair Housing Act claim, alleged violations of criminal statutes not generally enforceable in civil proceedings, and did not allege a claim made to the government for payment for the False Claims Act claim.
The Tenth Circuit panel, consisting of Judges Phillips, Kelly, and Federico, affirmed the dismissal on the grounds of waiver. The court noted that Namin's appellate brief did not address the district court's specific legal reasoning regarding the Fair Housing Act, False Claims Act, or civil rights claims. Citing Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver and Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, the court explained that an appellant must explain what was wrong with the reasoning the district court relied on; failure to do so disentitles the plaintiff to review. The court also rejected Namin's challenge to the district court's subject matter jurisdiction, confirming that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a civil action arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Furthermore, the court admonished Namin for including unnecessary insults directed at the district judge, stating that the court will not tolerate filings that attempt to impugn the integrity of a district judge without basis.
The dismissal of the amended complaint stands, ending this specific litigation against Kevin Jeffrey Vert. The decision reinforces that pro se litigants must still adhere to appellate briefing requirements to preserve arguments. It also serves as a warning that abusive filings and personal attacks on judges can lead to the denial of in forma pauperis status and potential sanctions, as the court explicitly denied Namin's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download