Court Allows Donald Troy Horton to Amend Complaint Over NGO Coins in Civil Rights Case Against U.S. Government
On Monday, November 25, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Utah permitted Donald Troy Horton to file an amended complaint in his civil rights case against the United States government and several high-profile officials, including President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. The court’s decision came after Horton, who is representing himself, submitted a complaint alleging significant government interference with his non-governmental organization (NGO) operations.
In his initial complaint, Horton claimed that the government had obstructed the transfer of $4.5 million to his personal account intended for his NGO. He asserted that this financial blockade included preventing the exchange of “NGO coins,” which he valued at approximately $1 trillion on the Blockchain Exchange. Horton alleged he experienced “real financial + personal injury” due to the government’s actions, which he claims have inhibited his ability to access and utilize these funds.
The court’s memorandum decision indicated that Horton’s allegations were largely incoherent and did not specify any actionable misconduct by the named defendants. The ruling emphasized that while pro se plaintiffs like Horton benefit from a more lenient interpretation of their filings, they are still required to meet the procedural standards outlined in federal law.
Horton’s complaint listed a variety of defendants, including several prominent government figures, and cited violations under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, which allows for lawsuits against federal officials for constitutional violations, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which applies to state officials. However, the court noted that the United States itself cannot be a defendant in these claims due to sovereign immunity.
The court also highlighted that Horton’s filings did not comply with the requirement for a short and plain statement of the claim as mandated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The judge stated that Horton’s submissions failed to provide sufficient factual support for his claims and did not clearly articulate how the actions of the government or its officials constituted a violation of his rights.
In response to the deficiencies in his initial complaint, the court has provided Horton with an opportunity to submit an amended complaint by December 16, 2024. The court advised Horton that this amended version must replace all previous complaints and that any claims not included in the new filing would be considered abandoned. The court will then review the amended complaint to determine if it states a plausible claim for relief under the applicable legal standards.
Horton has attached various documents to his complaint, including bank records and an affidavit regarding his U.S. citizenship status, which he claims to have revoked. The court noted that although attachments can be considered when evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, the relevance of these documents to his claims was unclear.
The ruling reflects the court’s commitment to ensuring that all litigants, regardless of their legal representation status, adhere to established legal standards. The decision underscores the importance of clearly articulating claims and providing a coherent legal basis for allegations made in court.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
