govinfo:USCOURTS-dcd-1_26-cv-00278-0

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
            
 
BURUDI J. FAISON,     ) 
       ) 
Plaintiff, ) 
) 
 v.      ) Civil Action No. 26-00278 (UNA) 
       ) 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,  ) 
       ) 
   Defendants.   ) 
 
Memorandum Opinion 
This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 
and pro se complaint.  ECF Nos. 1–2.  The court grants the application and dismisses the complaint 
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 
The plaintiff attempts to bring this action on behalf of “The People of the Sovereign States 
of the United States of America.”  ECF No. 1 at 5.  Generally, the plaintiff objects to the federal 
government’s deployment of  federal agents to the states for immigration enforcement .  See 
generally id. at 2–15.  Among other relief, the plaintiff demands an injunction barring “Defendants’ 
deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and any other federal agency into the 
jurisdiction of the States.”  Id. at 23.  
“Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power to deciding ‘Cases ’ and 
‘Controversies.’”  In re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d 756, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2008).  “One element of 
the case-or-controversy requirement is that plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to 
sue.”  Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, 968 F.3d 755, 762 (D.C. 
Cir. 2020) (citations and quotation marks omitted).  A party has standing to sue if they have “(1) 
suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, 
Case 1:26-cv-00278-UNA     Document 3     Filed 04/21/26     Page 1 of 2
2 
 
and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”  Id. at 763 (quoting Spokeo, 
Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016)). 
The court dismisses the complaint for two reasons.  First, the plaintiff does not appear to 
be a lawyer, and he cannot represent the interests of any other individual in federal court.  See 
United States ex rel. Feliciano v. Ardoin, 127 F.4th 382, 383 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (per curiam) (“While 
parties may conduct their own cases pro se, a non -attorney cannot appear pro se and seek to 
represent others.” (cleaned up)).  Second, the plaintiff does not allege that he has sustained, or is 
likely to sustain, an injury attributable to the defendants’ actions or omissions, without which the 
plaintiff lacks standing to sue.  Therefore, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and will 
dismiss the complaint.  A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.  
 
       /s/ 
       AMIR H. ALI 
       United States District Judge 
DATE: April 21, 2026 
 
 
Case 1:26-cv-00278-UNA     Document 3     Filed 04/21/26     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight