Hart v. US Department of the Treasury et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Kenneth Hannibal Hart
v. 	Case No. 14-cv-421-LM
United States Department
of the Treasury et al.1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court are two complaint addenda (doc. nos. 19
and 25), filed by pro se prisoner Kenneth Hannibal Hart, an
inmate at the New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”).2 	The filings
are before this magistrate judge for preliminary review under LR
4.3(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 	The standard employed by
the court in conducting the preliminary review is set forth in
the November 19, 2014, Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 8).
1The sole defendant remaining in this lawsuit is an unnamed
agency or organization of the state or federal government,
identified as “John Doe #3,” that plaintiff asserts is
responsible for making errors in his criminal record. 	This
court previously dismissed without prejudice Hart’s Federal Tort
Claims Act claims relating to government checks issued by the
U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, and dropped those agencies, the
Treasury Secretary, and the Comptroller of the Currency as
defendants.
2One of the two filings identified herein as a complaint
addendum (doc. no. 25) was initially docketed as an objection to
a May 28, 2015, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (doc. no. 20)
that has been withdrawn. 	In an Order issued on this date, the
court has withdrawn the relevant R&R and directed that Document
No. 25 be redocketed as a complaint addendum.
Case 1:14-cv-00421-LM Document 32 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 5

2
Background
Hart alleged in his original complaint (doc. no. 1) in this
matter that the United States Department of the Treasury and the
Comptroller of the Currency negligently allowed others to claim
government checks made out to “Kenneth Hart” as their own funds.
In the February 18, 2015, Order (doc. no. 15), the district
judge in this action approved the November 19, 2014, Report and
Recommendation (doc. no. 8), and dismissed without prejudice
Hart’s Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) claims relating to those
checks, on the ground that Hart had not presented an FTCA claim
to the proper federal agencies before he filed this lawsuit in
September 2014.
Attached as exhibits to Hart’s April 30, 2015, complaint
addendum (doc. no. 19) are certified mail receipts offered as
evidence that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller
of the Currency each received a letter from Hart, sent in
December 2014, inquiring whether the government had ever
authorized public funds to be remitted to Kenneth Hart from 1983
through 2014; whether such monies were sent to Hart at several
addresses listed by Hart from 1983 to 2014, including the U.S.
Navy, and the “Boston Welfare Department”; and whether persons
Case 1:14-cv-00421-LM Document 32 Filed 11/20/15 Page 2 of 5

3
claiming to be Hart had taken those monies. 	Those letters
further demand that Hart be provided with a list of all
addresses to which such funds were sent, and that funds owed to
Hart be paid to Hart at his NHSP address. 	See Doc. Nos. 19-1
and 19-2.
The filing (doc. no. 25) entitled, “Objection to Report and
Recommendation,” clarifies that Hart does not intend to assert
any claim relating to the loss or theft of government checks.
Rather, Document No. 25 states, Hart is asserting a claim that
the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, imposes
an obligation upon the government to provide him with a
reporting of all funds appropriated to him, upon his request,
and to pay him monies that may have been appropriated for his
benefit. 	Hart asserts a claim for relief under only that
provision.
Discussion
The cited part of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, known
as the “Statement and Account Clause,” provides as follows:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in
Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular
Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of
all public Money shall be published from time to time.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7 (emphasis added).
Nothing in the Statement and Account Clause provides
Case 1:14-cv-00421-LM Document 32 Filed 11/20/15 Page 3 of 5

4
plaintiff with a private right of action to require the
government to issue financial reports to plaintiff at the level
of detail he demands, upon his request, cf. United States v.
Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 178 n.11 (1974) (holding that taxpayer
lacks standing to pursue claim seeking disclosure of CIA
financial information, and noting that “Congress has plenary
authority to define the scope and requirements of any accounting
of public funds that must be made”). 	Moreover, nothing in the
Statement and Account Clause requires the government to issue
any monies owed to plaintiff upon his demand. 	Accordingly, the
court should dismiss claims asserted in Document Nos. 19 and 25,
against the Treasury Secretary and Comptroller, relating to
their alleged failure to respond to plaintiff’s written requests
for an accounting of monies that might be owed to him and to pay
him any funds that may have been appropriated for him.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the magistrate judge recommends
with respect to Document Nos. 19 and 25, that claims alleged to
be based on U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7,
be dismissed. 	Any objections to this Report and Recommendation
must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	Failure to file objections within
Case 1:14-cv-00421-LM Document 32 Filed 11/20/15 Page 4 of 5

5
the specified time waives the right to appeal the district
court’s order. 	See United States v. De Jesús-Viera, 655 F.3d
52, 57 (1st Cir. 2011); Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins.
Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010).
/s/ Andrea K. Johnstone
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
November 20, 2015
cc: 	Kenneth Hannibal Hart, pro se
Case 1:14-cv-00421-LM Document 32 Filed 11/20/15 Page 5 of 5