Theodore Allison El v. United States of America

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 28, 2024*
Decided August 29, 2024
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2706
THEODORE ALLISON EL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 23-cv-04117
Sharon Johnson Coleman,
Judge.
O R D E R
When his application for a passport was denied because of unpaid federal
income taxes, Theodore Allison El (“Allison”), who describes himself as a “non-resident
alien” of “Moorish American Nationality,” sued the United States and officials of
several federal agencies, seeking damages. He alleged that the defendants violated
several of his constitutional rights in denying him a passport and demanding tax
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is
frivolous. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(A).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-2706 Page 2
payments that he believes are unlawful. Of its own accord, the district court dismissed
the complaint as frivolous, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) despite Allison having prepaid the
full filing fee. Allison appeals, challenging the court’s authority to dismiss his case,
rehashing his theory that he cannot lawfully be taxed, and insisting that he stated a
valid claim of a denial of his right to travel. We affirm.
The district court had “ample authority” to curb Allison’s frivolous litigation via
dismissal. See Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003). And there is no
question that this suit is frivolous. Suing the United States for constitutional violations
is a non-starter, see FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475–78 (1994), and Allison makes no
effort to explain why his claims against the officials might be cognizable under Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Further,
much of Allison’s complaint is based on a theory that his purported citizenship status
precludes the federal government from taxing him—a theory we have repeatedly
deemed frivolous and sanctionable, see e.g., Bey v. Indiana, 847 F.3d 559, 559–60 (7th Cir.
2017); see also Veal-Hill v. Comm’r, 976 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2020) (adjusting presumptive
sanction for frivolous tax appeals to $5,000).
Also frivolous are Allison’s claims that are premised on a constitutional right to
travel internationally. Even if he could bring these claims under Bivens, they would fail
on the merits. The federal government needs only a rational basis to restrict
international travel, see Clancy v. Off. of Foreign Assets Control, 559 F.3d 595, 604 (7th Cir.
2009), and a restriction based on unpaid taxes is justified, cf. United States v. Indianapolis
Baptist Temple, 224 F.3d 627, 630 (7th Cir. 2000). Allison does not mention his other
claims on appeal, and so he has waived any argument that their dismissal was
erroneous. See Bradley v. Village of University Park, 59 F.4th 887, 897 (7th Cir. 2023).
Allison has 14 days to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for
prosecuting this frivolous appeal. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 38.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --