Court filing

Objection to Report and Recommendation — Kengne v. ID.me, Inc.

Summary

Raissa Djuissi Kengne, filing pro se, objected on 08/16/22 in Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG (N.D. Ga.) to Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas's report of August 5, 2022, which denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis and recommended dismissing the complaint against ID.me, Inc. without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to comply with a lawful order. The suit seeks to let the plaintiff receive unemployment benefits through the plaintiff's ID.me account; the objection says ID.me's partnership with the Georgia Department of Labor (GDOL) makes it a state actor. It names 42 U.S.C. § 1104, the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-8-45 and the Fourteenth Amendment as the sources of the plaintiff's right of action, and quotes the plaintiff's earlier statement that monthly income over the past 7.5 months was $0.00.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Objection to Report and Recommendation — Kengne v. ID.me, Inc.” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/kengne-v-idme/2022-08-16-objection-to-report-and-recommendation/.

Full text

Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 of 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE
...... U.S.D.C. -Atlanta
AUG 16 2022

RAISSA DJUISS l KENGNE, )
Plaintiff, )
) Case No.
V. ) 1 :22-CV-2297
TD.ME, IN C. )
COGENCY GLOBAL INC. )
250 BROWNS HILL CT, )
MlDLOTl ll /\N , VA, 23 114-9510, USA )
)

Defendant. )

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OBJ ECTION TO THE REPORT AND
RECOMMEN DATION AN D ORDER AND NOTICE OF CONTINUED
APPEAL

1 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 2 of 26

APPENDIX TO RA"JSSA D.TTHSS"J KENGNE'S OBJECTION TO
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER AND
NOTICE OF CONTINUED APPEAL AND APPLICATION FOR
APPELLATE REVIEW IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULES 30
AND 31 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE

Exhibit I I DOC. I . JD.ME C ivil Cover Sheet
+---
Exhibit 2 DOC. 5 Plai nt iffs Motion For Recons ideration of Plaintiffs
Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Exhibit 3 DOCs.7 and 2 nd Report and Recommendation and Order
8
Exh ibit 4 NI A C fVIL DOCKET FOR CASE#: I :22-cv-02237-SEG

TABLE OF CONTENT TO RAISSA DJUISSJ KENGNE'S

OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
ORDER AND NOTICE OF CONTINUED APPEAL

AND

APPLICATION FOR APPELLATE REVIEW IN COMPLIANCE WITH
RULES 30 AND 31 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE

TABLE OF CONTENT
APPENDIX TO RAISSA DJUISSI KENGNE'S OBJECTION TO THE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER AND NOTICE OF
CONTINUED APPEAL AND APPLICATION FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULES 30 AND 31 OF THE FEDERAL RULES
OFAPPELLATEPROCEDURE 2
TABLE OF CONTENT 2

2 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 3 of 26

I. OBJECTIONS, RESPONSES, AND ARGUMENTS TO THE REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER 7
A. OBJECTIONS, RESPONSES, AND ARGUMENTS TO STATEMENT
OF ANALYSIS 1 7
B. OBJECT IONS, RESPONSES, AND ARGUMENTS TO STATEMENT
OF ANALYSIS 2 10
C. OBJECTIONS, RESPONSES, AND ARGUMENTS TO STATEMENT
OF ANALYSIS 3 15
D. CLAIM 18
E. OTHER CASES FILED BY PLA INTIFF 18
F. IFP AND FILING FEES 19
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20
III. CERTIFICATION 23
CONCLUSION 24
CERTlFICATE OF SERVICE 26

Cases
Bi lal v. Ori ver, 25 I F.3d 1346, 1349 ( I I th C ir. 200 I) ............................. , ............. .15
Con ley v. G ibson, 35 5 U.S. 4 1, 45-46, 78 S.Ct b. 99, 101 - 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)
.............................................. ...................... ........... .... ................ ...... ............. ...... ..... 5
Conley v. G ibson, 355 U.S. 4 1, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)
... ................ .......... .. ..................... .. .................. ........ ... ......... .. ...... ....... .................... 18
Edm onso n v. Leesv ille Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 6 14 (1991) ............................. 9
Martinez v. Kristi K leane rs, Inc. , 364 F.3d 1305, I 307 ( 11th Cir. 2004) ............... 14
Mixon v. Cori zon, Inc. , 201 2 WL 113633 1 at *2 (S.D . Ala. Mar. 30, 20 12) ....... .. 14

3 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 4 of 26

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

PL /\lN'fIFF, R/\ISSA DJUISSl KENGNE ("Plaintiff' or "Homeowner'')

hereby s ubmits her response and objections to the F inal Report And

Recommendation And O rder filed on August 5th, 2022 issued in relation to

Plaintiff's Complaint and Request For Injunction (the "Report", or "R & R '') and the

Motion For Reconsideration of Plaintiff's Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(the ''Motion for Reconsideration'') dated July I si, 2022. United States Magistrate

Judge Cathe rine M. Salinas, has recommended and ordered as follows:

ORDERED, that Plai nti ffs application to proceed TFP be DENIED

RECOMMEND ED and ORDERED, that Plaintiffs complaint be

DISM1SSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

and for fa ilure to comply w ith a lawfu l order of the Court.

The recommended o rder must be refused for the following reasons:

( 1) Although not expressly stated on the C iv il Cover Sheet, but

implied. Plainti!Ts causes or action and clai ms for relief as noted under

Plaintiff's Co mplaint and Request For Injunction as well as in her Motion

for Reconsideration fall under the US Constitution 14th Amendment.

Pla in tiff has c larified he r claims in her "Motion For Reconsideration of

Plaintiffs Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis" dated July 15\ 2022 that

she filed with the Court [See Exhibit 2, at 12-15] and in her Motion for

4 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 5 of 26

Appeal that she fil ed on July 5th , 2022 [DOC.5, at 29-32]. Plaintiff has an

imp li ed and exp ress right of acti on under the following statutes : a) 42

U.S.C. § 11 04 Unemp loyment Trust F und, b) 26 U .S .C. 3301 et seq.

Fede ra l Une mployment Tax Act, c) O.C.G .A. § 34-8-45 Supplemental

th
unemployment benefits, d) the 14th Amendment - T itle I, and e) the 14

Amend me nt - Public Health, Safety, and Morals.
th
Pla int iff s c la ims unde r the 14 th Amendment - T itle I and the 14

/\mcndment - Public Health, Safety, and Morals are not express ly included

in the C ivil Cover sheet, but are implied in analyzi ng the impact that the

lack of inco me can have on an individual and the de privation by ID.Me,

Inc. of the way for Plaintiff to access legally obtained income.

Furthe rmore, in evaluating the legal suffic iency of a complaint for

pu rposes of§ 19 1S(d), the courts apply the customary standard enunciated

in Con ley v. G ibson, 355 U.S. 4 1, 45-46, 78 S.Ct b. 99, IO 1-102, 2 L.Ed.2d

80 ( 1957), that a complai nt sho uld not be dismissed for fai lure to state a

c laim un less it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of

facts in s upport of hi s o r her c laim, which would e ntitl e him or her to relief.

Pla intiff can prove the facts to s upport her c laims and has provided

evidence to support her claims [DOCs 1 and 5].

5 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 6 of 26

Plaintiffs claims are not based on diversity jurisdiction, but on a

Federal question as shown on the Civil Cover sheet. See Exhibit 1.

In add ition to 42 U.S.C. § 1104 Unem ployment Trust Fund and 26

U .S .C. 33 0 I et seq. Federal Unemploy ment Tax Act, the 14th Amendment

- Title I and the 14th Amendment- Public Health, Safety, and Morals have

a fed era l question and provide for both an express and implied right of

acti on, wh ich include, but are not limited to causes of action for abridging

the privileges of Plaintiff as a citizen of the United States, depriving

P la intiff of life, liberty, or property, w ithout due process of law, and

deny ing Plaintiff the eq ual protection of the laws 1•

(2) Plaintiff meets all the requirements to proceed in forma

pauperis ("[ FP"); P laintiff has submitted her arguments as well as clarified

her res ponses provided on the lFP form that she completed (which are

accurate) in her ''Motion For Recons ideration" dated July Pt, 2022 that

she filed w ith the Court [See Exhibit 2, at 2-11] and in her Motion for

Appeal that she filed on July 5 th, 2022 [DOC.5, at6- l l] .

(3) Plaintiff has the right to file an appeal to proceed in IFP

w ithout havi ng her case dismissed because she waited, as allowed by law,

1
See the website Constit ution An noted: Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution
(htt ps:/ /const it ution .congress.gov/browse/ amendment-14/section-1/) ·

6 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 7 of 26

to hear a rulin g from the cou rt of appeals prior to paying the filing fees, if

needed, which is the centerpoint of the appeal. Therefore, Judge Catherine

M. Salinas inaccurately represented the fact by stating that Plaintiff

"fai l! cdl to comply with a lawfu l order of the Court" to pay the filing fees

[Doc. 7, at 5].

(4) Plaintiff s case is in appeal and therefore, any arguments

in the Rcpo11 and Recommendation and order may be moot upon a ruling

o r the United Sates Court of Appeals.

I. OBJECTIONS, RESPONSES, AND ARGUMENTS TO THE
REPORT AN D RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

A. OBJECTIONS, RESPONSES, AND ARGUMENTS TO STATEMENT
OF ANALYSIS 1

Judge Catheri ne M . Salinas stated as fo llows:

·· The Order further notified Plaintiff that if she sought to proceed with

her lawsuit. she should.first "ens ure that she alleges a valid claim and

that federal and/or diversity jurisdiction exists. " [Id. at 2 11. 2}. The

Order pointed out that after review of her proposed complaint, it was

doubtful that any ofthe federal or state statutes cited by Plaintiff in her

7 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 8 of 26

proposed complaint provided any individual right of action in federal

court.2 [!d.J " [DOC 7, at 2]

Plaintiff clari fied her c laims in her Motion for Reconsideration (see Exhibit

2) and Moti on fo r Appeal [DOC. SJ. A lthough Judge Catherine M . Salinas chose to

disregard Pla intiff s responses, it does not mean that Plaintiff, by law, does not have

ca uses of acti on.

Judge Catherine M. Salinas stated as fo llows:

"However, there are no a/legations in Plaint[ff's proposed complaint

to support f ederal question jurisdiction. She has not cited any federal

law or statute that would provide federal question subject matter

jurisdiction over her claims. ·· [DOC 7, at 4]

Simila rl y, Judge Ca therine M. Salinas chose to disregard Plaintiff's responses

in her Motion for Recons iderati o n (sec Ex hibit 2) and Motion fo r Appeal [DOC. 5];

it does not mean that Plaintiff, by law, does not have causes of action.

42 U.S.C. § 11 04 U nempl oyment Trust Fund, 26 U.S.C. 330 1 et seq . Federal

Unemp loyment Tax /\ct, the 14th Amendment - T it le I, a nd the 14th Amendment -

Pub lic Health, Safety, and Morals governing authorities have a federal question and

provide for both an express and implied right of action, which include, but are not

li mited to causes of action fo r abridg ing the priv ileges of Pla intiff as a citizen of the

8 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 9 of 26

U nited States, d epriving P la intiff of life, li be rty, or property, without due process of

law, and de ny ing Plai ntiff the equa l protection of the laws 2 .

Indeed, the Georg ia Departm ent of Labor (GDOL) has partnered with ID.me

to verify cla imant ide ntifi c atio n in orde r to rece ive any types o f unemployment

benefits, whic h makes ID.Me a state actor.

A state acto r:; is a person who is acting on be ha lf of a governmenta l body, and

is therefore su bject to regulation unde r the Un ited States Bi ll of Rights, including

the F irst, F ifth a nd Fo urteenth Amendme nts, w hi ch prohibit the federal and state

governments fro m vio lating cer1ain rig hts and freedo ms. T houg h the te rm wo uld

seem to inc lude o nly perso ns who are d irectly employed by the state, the United

States Supreme C ourt has interpreted these ame ndments a nd laws passed pursuant

to them to cover many perso ns w ho have only an ind irect relatio nship w ith the

governm ent. Accord ing to the Supreme Court in E dmonson v. Leesville Concrete

Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 61 4 ( 199 1) , "Althoug h the conduct of private pa rties lies beyond

the Co nst ituti on's scope in most instances, govern menta l autho rity may do minate an

act ivity to suc h an exte nt that its participants must be deem ed to act with the

a utho rity of the governme nt and , as a res ult, be s ubject to constituti o na l constraints."

2
See the website Consti tution A nnoted: A nalys is and Interpretati on of the U.S. Consti tution
(https://constitution.co ngress.gov/bmwse/amendment- 14/secti on- I/)
1
See website Cornel l I.aw Schoo l l ,cga l institute In formation
(https://www. la\\ .corncl 1.cdu/wc:-./state_action requirement).

9 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 10 of 26

For the forego ing reasons, the referenced 2 nd Final Report And

Recommendation And Order issued should not be adopted to the extent it

recommends that Plaintiff's application to proceed lFP be denied, Plaintiffs

Compla int be dismi ssed w ithout prej udi ce for lack of s ubj ect matter jurisdiction and

fo r fai lure to comply with a lawful order of the Court.

B. OBJECT IO NS, RES PONSES, AND ARGUMENTS TO STATEMENT
OF ANALYSIS 2

Judge Catherine M. Salinas stated as fo llows:

"The Order was based on the.financial affidavit that Plaintiff completed and filed

1111der peno/1y <?/'perjury. I [Doc. I]. "'[Doc. 7 at 2).

Plaintiff has already provided a response to explain her financial situation

stating that the expenses reflected in the Affidav it were applicable prior to Plaintiff

constructi ve di scharged o n November I 8th , 202 1 [DOC. 5 at 25]. The financial

affidavit is accurate; Judge Catherine M. Salinas chose to highlig ht elements that

wou ld s upport a dismissal and ignore the full picture to represent the fair financial

situation of Plaintiff.

Judge Catherine M. Salinas also included the fo llowing footnotes [Doc. 7 at

2-3).

··She listed no children or a spouse that rely on her for support, and she

indicated that she owns a condo valued at approximately $500,000, a land lot worth

10 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 11 of 26

$55,000, and an abandoned house worth approximatefv 5200,000. [Doc. 1, Pl. 's

A.ff.I The 1111dersixned /011ntl thut I'lainli/(, annual income was well above the

poverty le1·el, and while she listed average monthly expenses that exceeded her

monthly income, I noted that some of those discretionary amounts for one person

seemed unnecessarily high, such as $1000 for food, $ 1000 for utilities, $200 for

lo11m/, y and dry cleaning and S6000 to Bank ofAmerica, Citi Bank, and American

fapress. / Uoc. 2 at 2). I concluded that while she may have limited funds and may

have other priorities for those funds, according to her affidavit, she was able to pay

the required $402fllingfee and should do so ifshe wished to pursue this case. [Id.}.

:! l'l,11111!/f 's pro1um:cl complaint ulleges. as a basis for fe deral question

j urisdiction, that the named defendants violated the following federal and state

statutes by refusing lo provide I'laintUf aaess to her ac:counl on JD.me 's website

in order for Plciimiff to rccc:ivc.> unemploy111t?11t benefits. '·causing Plaintiff to live

111thu111111co111e · ./2 USC.§ 110./ (Unemployment Trust Fund),· 26 USC§ 3301,

el seq. (Federal Unemploymenl Tax Act) ; and O.C.G.A. § 34-8-45 (Supplemenial

Unemployment Beneflis). [Doc. 1-1 al 3-4]. Plaintiff has cited no authority

indicating that any of in the same week seeking permission to proceed JFP.3 For

the same or similar reasons. all o( Nwnti(fs applications to proceed !FP were

denied.

Similarly, Judge C atherine M. Salinas has c hosen to highlight the e lements to

s upport a dis missal a nd ignore th e informatio n prov ided that present a fairer

re prese ntation of Plain tiffs fin ancia l s ituat ion. Fo r example, Plaintiff provided the

fo llowing info rm ation [DOC 5, at 2 l] :

11 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 12 of 26

"f'laintiffs monfh(I' income over the {}{/Sf seven and a half (7.5) months is $0.00.

Plaintijf'has utili::.ed all her retirement savings, including her income she earned

prior to being constructively discharged, in order to pay for the security and safety

<?/ her family, which is also related lo the subject matter of case number

2022CV365268 .filed in Fulton County Superior Court. Therefore, the average

month(y income of S 7,500 from Plaintiffs employmen t and retirement, does not

re.fleet that the money was used/or safety and security in view ofthe threats Plaintiff

ond her family were facing. Plaintiffs priorities were and are perfectly aligned to

the law of God and the thought process of any reasonable person. In view of the

subject mailer in case number 2022CV365268, Plaintiff's family came first and she

spent a considerable amount of money to ensure their security and safety.

Further. Plaint(// hos prol'ided in Exhibits 2 and 3 herein evidence showing that

she 11·a .\· not able to receive unemployment benefits since her constructive discharge

on November 18th, 2022. The Plaintiff's law.mil against ID.Me, Inc. is lo allow

Plaintiffto receive her unemployment benefits. ,.

In add ition , Plaintiff provided the informatio n below [DOC 5, at 22], which

a lso explai ns that Judge Catherine M. Salinas on ly looked at the FAIR value of the

property without looking at th e mortgage on the property; Therefor e, the NET

va lue of the property i not 500,000 it i a lot less (this is applicabl e to all assets

listed on the forms. Judge Catherin e M. Sa linas refused to look at the lia bilities

12 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 13 of 26

on Plaintiff's assets in order to support her opinion to deny Plaintiff's Motions

and dismiss the Complaint :

"The facts presented in the Repurt related lo the l'laint~[f"s .financial

,11111111u11 11re i11cn1111Jlcte. f'latnl1//'s liabilit ,es nn the proper!il!s Iisted. particularly

1he wndominium, the land, and the abandoned house as well as the state ofpre-

f oreclosure on certain of the said properties were not taken into consideration by

the Judge qf the Magistrate Courl. Plaint([/ does not have significant equity in the

fond und the house. Due to the foreclosure process, Plaintiff may not receive any

jimdsji-0111 the sale of those properties.

Plaintiffhas provided in Exhibit 4 herein evidence showing that the said properties

are at risk of f oreclosure. The abandoned and inhabitable house worth

upproximotely S200,000 is mortgaged with Delta Community Credit Union. The

land lot worth approximately $55,000 is mortgaged with AGSOUTH Farm Credit,

ACA. Both properties are under f oreclosure notices as shown in Exhibit 4.

Plaintiff's main asset is the condominium with a value of approximately $500,000,

which is Plaintiff's primary residence and is subject to a mortgage that Plaintiff is

also unable to pay due to the subj ect matter of case number 2022C V3 65268 filed

in Fulton County Superior Court.

In addition, Plaintiff has provided in Exhibit 2 herein evidence showing that her

home was broken info, she was bLack/istedfrom her industry, and prevented to find

a j ob in line with her qualifications due to the subject matter of case number

2022C V365268filed in Fulton County Superior Court.

13 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 14 of 26

Further, Plaintiff has provided in Exhibits 2 and 3 herein evidence showing that

she 11·a\· 1101 ahle to receive unemployment benefits since her constructive discharge

011 Nm •ember 18th. 2022. The Plaintiff's lawsuit against ID.Me, Inc. is to allow

Plaintflf to receive her unemployment benefits.

Based on § 1915(a) and Rule 24, to grant a motion to proceed IFP on appeal,

the mov ing party must s ubmit an affidavit that demonstrates ( 1) an inability to pay,

(2) entitleme nt to redress, (3) the issues on appeal, and (4) good faith. The first

requirement to meet w hen considering a motion to proceed IFP, " .. is whether the

statements in the affidavit satisfy the requ irement of poverty." Martinez v. Kristi

K leaners, Inc. , 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 ( 11th Cir. 2004). To show poverty, the Plaintiff

need not show that he is "absolute ly destitute." Id. Instead, the plaintiff must

demonstrate that "beca use of his pove rty, he is unable to pay for the court fees and

costs, and to s upport a nd provide necessities for himself and his dependents. " Id. The

second require ments to proceed IFP on appeal, requires the moving party to state an

e ntitl ement of redress. P laintiff has done so see Exhibit 2 and DOCs, 1, 5. The third

condition for proceedin g IFP requ ires the moving party to c learly state the issues on

appeal. Plaint iff has done so [DOC. 5]. The fourth requirement to proceed IFP on

appeal is good faith. T he test for w hether an appeal is taken in good faith under

sectio n 19 l 5(a) is whether the litigant seeks appellate rev iew of any issue that is not

frivolous . M ixon v. Cori zon, Inc., 20 12 WL 11 36331 at *2 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 30,

20 12). A c la im is frivolous if it is "without arguable merit either in law or fact." Bilal

14 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 15 of 26

v. Driver, 25 1 F.3d 1346, 1349 ( 11th C ir. 2001 ). In this case, the iss ues on appeal,

as listed above, are not frivo lous.

For the forego ing reasons, the referenced 2nd Final Report And

R ecommendati on J\nd Order issued shou ld not be adopted to the extent it

reco mm ends that Plain tiff's appli cation to proceed IFP be denied, Plaintiffs

complaint be dismi ssed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and

for fai lure to comply w ith a lawful order of the Court.

C. OBJECTIONS, RESPONSES, AND ARGUMENTS TO STATEMENT
OF ANALYSIS 3

Judge Catherine M. Salinas stated as fo llows in her R&R:

.. Instead of' timely pay ing the filing fee and submitting an amended complaint,

Plaint{/ffiled a 6 78-page motion for appeal, citing 28 U.S.C. § J915(a), Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, and 28 U.S.C. § J 292(b) as the purported

g<Jl'erning a uthorities. [Doc. 5). in that motion. Plaintiff arg ues that by delaying

mu/ preventing Plointij/Jrom accessing her ID.me unemployment account, ID.me

hm ··wronJdully, illegally, and/or unlawf ul [sic} depriving Plaintiffoffoo d, shelter,

and adequate healthcarl!. " and ··violated Plaintiff 11nalienable rights under the

I-Ith Amendment f"itll! f" um/ her "'right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of

llo/JJ)inl!S.\ os \\'ell as due 1woce,., · /Doc. 5 ut YJ. Thul 1110/ion remuins pending

before the district judge assigned to this case.

15 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 16 of 26

With regard to the complaint that Plaint(//' has filed in this case, not only has

Plain/ f/jfailed to pay the filing fee ; she has also fa iled to establish subject matter

jurisdiction over her claim(s)". [DOC. 7, at 3-4)

Pla intiff submitted the fo llowing documents for an appeal:

• /\ moti on, with a total number of pages equal to 33.

• Exhibit 1, which is the Complaint related to the retaliation Plaintiff was

subj ected to upon reporting violations of SEC regulations, PCAOB

standa rds, and AICPA standards. The Compla int was removed to the

U.S. District Court for the Northern District, Atlanta Division. Judge

Catherine M. Salinas has also issued an order to dismiss the case and

deni ed all of Plaintiff s motions. Exhibit 1 contains 514 pages.

• There were additional exhibits. However, the motion in appeal was only

33 pages long.

• The page count provided by Judge Catherine M. Salinas does not

excl ude first pages, table of contents, and exhibits.

Plai ntiff also filed a Motion fo r Reconsideration prior to filing the Motion for

Appeal to fully present her case to Judge Catherine M . Salinas.

Furthermore, P laintiff notes and wants to clarify that 28 U .S.C. § 1915(a),

Federal Ru le of Appellate Procedure 24, and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) are the governing

authorities that allow Plaintiff to file an appeal.

16 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 17 of 26

Plaintiff's causes of action fall under the statutes listed below, which include

Federal questions and provide for implied and express rights of action.

• 42 U.S .C. § 1104 Unemployment Trust Fund,

• 26 U.S.C. 3301 et seq. Federal Unemployment Tax Act,

• O.C.G .A. § 34-8-45 Supplemental unemploy ment benefits,

• The 14th Amendment - Title I, and

• T he 14th A mendment - Public Health, Safety, and Morals

F urthermore, Plaintiff has not ''failed to pay the filing fee " nor "fail[ed} to

comply with a lawful order of the Court "; Plaint iff has fil ed a Motion for

Reco nsideration w ith in 14 days4 of the order and first R&R issued by Judge

Catherine M. Salinas and a motion for appeal w it hin 30 days5 of the order and

first R&R issued by Judge Catherine M. Salinas (see Exhibit 4 for a timeline of

the fi lings).

For the forego ing reasons, the referenced 2nd Final Report And

Recommendation A nd Order issued should not be adopted to the extent it

recom mends th at Pla inti rrs application to proceed IFP be denied, Plaintiffs

4
LR 7.2 SPEC! FI C MOTi ON S (https://www .gand.uscourts.gov/sites/defaul t/files/NDGA RulesCY .pdt)
(E) Motions for Reconsideration. ... Whenever a party or attorney for a party believes it is absolutely necessary to
file a motion to reconsider an order or j udgment, the motion shall be filed w ith the clerk of court w ithin twenty-eight
(28) days after entry o f the order or judgment. Responses shall be filed not later than fourteen ( 14) days after service
of the motion.
5
FEDERAL RULcS OF A PPELLATE PROCED URE - Rule 4. Appeal as of Right- When Taken
(a) Appeal in a Civ i I Case.
( I ) T ime for Filing a Noti ce of A ppeal.
(A) In a civil case, except as provided in Rules 4(a)( I )(B), 4(a)(4), and 4(c), the notice of appeal required by Rule 3
must be filed w ith the district clerk w ithin 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.

17 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 18 of 26

compla int be di smi ssed w ithout prejudice fo r lack of subject matter jurisdiction

and for fa ilure to comply w ith a lawfu l order of the Court.

D. CLAIM

In e valuating the lega l surtici ency of a complaint for purposes of § 1915(d),

the courts apply the c ustomary standard enunciated in Conley v . G ibson, 355 U.S.

41 , 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101- 102, 2 L.E d.2d 80 (1957), that a complaint should not

be di sm issed fo r fai lure to state a claim unl ess it appears beyond doubt that the

P laintiff can prove no se t of facts in s upport of his or her c laim, which would entitle

him or her to re lief. P la intiff can prove the facts to support her claims and has

provided ev ide nce to support he r c laims.

Plaintiff\ Prn)crs fo r Re lief to the Co urt in P la intiff s Complaint an d R equest

For Injunction inc lude, but is not limited to, a Court' s request to "Grant any such

add itional re lief to Plaintiff in law o r equ ity as the Court dee ms just a nd proper under

the circumstances." P la in ti ff s request includes actual and pun itive damages.

E. OTHER CASES FILED BY PLAINTIFF

P lain tiff has req uested to proceed in 1FP on three (3) diffe re nt cases that shed

fi led in the U .S. Distr ict Court fo r the orthern District, Atlanta Div is ion a ll related

to the reta liatio n practices that she faced upon reporting a fraud at BDO USA, LLP

where she was previously employed as an IT Aud it Manager. T he cases numbers are

18 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 19 of 26

1:22-CV-2237, I :22-CV-2297-SEG, and I :22-CV-2263. In addition, Plaintiff filed

the main retaliation case in Fulton County Superior Court (2022CV365), which was

removed to the U.S. District Federal Court for the Northern District, Atlanta

Divis ion by BDO USA, LLP and other defendants (1 :22-cv-02653-SEG-CMS).

Judge Catherine M. Salinas has intervened and issued in all four (4) cases of

Plaintiff, one or more Reports and Recommendations without fully considering

Plaintiff s arguments and advocating for the defendants in her ruling, which in all

cases have favored tbe defense. In three (3) out of the four (4) cases listed above,

Judge Catherine M. Salinas has tried to dismiss the cases instead of letting the

Defendants make thc ir arguments for a dismissal. In four (4) out of four (4) cases,

Judge Catherine M . Salinas has issued recommendations and orders to have all of

Plaintiffs cases di smi ssed. All of Plaintiffs cases are related to the retaliation that

she was subjected to upon engaging in a protected activity. Therefore, Plaintiff has

decided to file an appeal.

F. IFP AND FILING FEES

Should the U.S. Court of Appeals decline Plaintiff's request to proceed in IFP,

Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to extend the timing allowed for Plaintiff to

pay the filing fees by several months. It will certainly delay justice, but at least

Plaintiff w ill have her day in Court.

19 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 20 of 26

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Plaintiffs case fa ll s under the fo llowing U.S. Civil Statutes.

a. 42 U.S.C . § 1104 Unemployment Trust Fund

b. 26 U.S.C. 3301 et seq. Federal Unemployment Tax Act

c. O.C.G.A . § 34-8-45 Supplemental unemployment benefits

d. 14th J\mcndment Section 1.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case because Plaintiffs

claims arise under the laws of the State of Georgia and the United States. It has

jurisdiction over the Plai ntiff's state law and regulati ons claims because they are so

closely related to the federal claims as to form part of the same case or controversy.

The Northern District of Georgia consists of four (4) divisions as outlined and

described in 28 U .S .C. § 90. The Atlanta Division comprises the counties of

Cherokee, C layton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, and

Rockdale.

Pursuant to 2 8 U.S. Code § 1391, a civil action may be brought in a judicial

district in which a s ubstantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim

occurred, or a substantia l part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.

Pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 139 1, for purposes of venue in a State, which has

more than one judicial district and in which a defendant that is a corporation is

subj ect to perso nal jurisd iction at the time an action is commenced, such corporation

20 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 21 of 26

shall be deemed to res ide in any district in that State within which its contacts would

be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate State,

and, if there is no such district, the corporation shall be deemed to reside in the

district within w hi ch it has the most significant contacts.

Pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1343, Civil rights and elective franchise, the

Northern District Court of the State of Georgia has authority:

( I) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or

beca use of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United

States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section

1985 of Title 42;

(2) T o recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to

aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he

had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;

(3 ) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute,

ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity

secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress

providing fo r eq ual rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction

of th e Un ited States;

21 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 22 of 26

( 4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under

any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the

rig ht to vote ;

(5) To exercise s uch other powers, not contrary to the Constitution,

as are or may be g iven to such courts by law.

Venue is proper in this Court because alI or a substantial part of the conduct

and violations giving rise to the claims in the case occurred in the State of Georgia.

See O.C.G.A § 14-2-5 10, O.C.G.A § 9- 10-9 1, O.C.G .A § 9-10-93, O.C.G.A § 9-

10-3 1, and O.C.G.A § 9- 10-34 .

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant ID.ME, Inc. because

Defendant ID.Me, Inc, throug h its agents committed the acts that are the s ubject

matter of thi s laws uit in the State of Georgia. See O.C.G.A § 14-2-510, O.C.G.A §

9-10-91 , O.C.G.A § 9- 10-93, O.C.G.A § 9-10-31, and O.C.G.A § 9-10-34.

T his Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant ID.Me, Inc. because

Defendant ID.Mc, [nc. and its agents and employees, have ongoing and systematic

contacts w ith the State of Georg ia, maintains headquarter offices in the State of

Georgia, and reside in the State of Georgia, and have committed the acts that are

the subj ect matter of th is lawsuit in the state of Georgia.

Venue i~ proper in this Court because Defendant TD.Me, Tnc.'s conducts

substantial business in Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia.

22 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 23 of 26

Plaintiff Raissa Djuissi Kengne has standing to bring this Complaint in

Court because she w ill be adversely affected by the actions of the Defendant and

will be subject to undue harm if Defendant does not allow Plaintiff to have access

to her ID .Me account.

According ly, venue is proper pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 90, 28 U.S. Code§

1391 , 28 U .S. Code§ 1343, and Georgia Civi l Practice and Corporations,

Partnerships, And Associations Code § 15-6-8, O.C.G.A § 14-2-510, O.C.G.A § 9-

10-91 , O.C.G .A § 9- 10-93, O .C.G.A § 9-10-3 1, O.C.G.A § 9-10-34.

III. CERTIFICATION

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 , I certify to the best of my

knowledge, information, and belief that this complaint: ( l) is not being presented for

an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly

increase the cost of I itigation; (2) is supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous

argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law; (3) the factual

contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have

evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or

discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule

11.

23 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 24 of 26

I agree to provide the Clerk ·s Office w ith any changes to my address where case

related papers may be served. I understand that my failure to keep a current address

on file with the C lerk' s Office may res ult in the di smissal of mv
- ✓
case.

CONCLUSION

For the forego ing reasons, the referenced 2 nd Final Report And

Recommendati on And Order iss ued (i n re lation to the Plaintiff' s Original

Complaint, Injunction For Relief, And Declaratory Judgment as well as the Motion

for Reconsideration) should not be adopted to the extent it recommends that

Plaintiff s application to proceed IFP be deni ed, Plaintiffs complaint be dismissed

without prej udice for lack of s ubject matter jurisdiction and for fai lure to comply

with a lawful order of the Court.

(Signature page fo llows)

24 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 25 of 26

Dated: Augu st I 5 th , 2022

Respectfully submitted,

Ph ysical J\ddrcss: Raissa Djuissi Kengne

1280W. Peachtree ST NW. Unit 2 109 Pro Se

Atlanta, GA 30309
Mailing Address:

Te lephone: (404) 932- 165 1 570 Piedmont Ave. NE #55166

Emai I: cianc~cya2022({i\gma iI.com Atlanta, GA 30308

State of Georgia
County of Fulton

This instrument was ack now ledged before me thi s 15t h day of August (month),
2022 (year), by Rai ssa Dj ui ssi Kengne (name of signer).

/ Personally Known
I Produced Identification

Type and # of ID - Driver' s License#
(Seal)

Jocelyn Algarin
NOTARY PUBLIC
Cobb County, GEORGIA Notary Public, State of Georgia
My Commission Expires 03/08/2026

25 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 26 of 26

C ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

T he unde rsig ned here by certifies that on A ug ust 161\ 2022, all counsel of

reco rd who are dee med to have conse nted to electronic serv ice are be ing served a

true and correct co py of the fo regoing document using the Cou1t' s CM/ECF system ,

in compliance w ith Local R ules, by mailing the sam e, certified mail w ith return

rece ipt, to the address Iisted be low.

ID. ME, INC.
COG ENC Y GLOBAL INC.
250 BROWNS HILL CT,
MIDLOT III AN, VA, 23 11 4 - 95 10, USA

Respectfu lly s ubm itted,

~\ ~-~
1 ..
Raissa Djuissi Ke ngne
Pro Se

Mailing /\dd ress: Phys ical Address:
570 Piedmont /\ ve. NE #55 166 1280 W. Peachtree ST NW. U nit 2 109
Atlanta, GA 30308 A tlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 932-1561
cianeseya2022 ~i)g mai I.co m

26 of 26

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.gand.304058.9.0.pdf
Size: 9,624,105 bytes
SHA-256: 06d8efe9b24c2f7b87a7b14098082a54185a239ad4fc74fdf5ad254cca66dfd9
Our copy: gov.uscourts.gand.304058.9.0.pdf
Original: No public link identified.