Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
RAISSA DJUISSl KENGNE,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Case No.
V.
)
1 :22-CV-2297
TD.ME, INC.
)
COGENCY GLOBAL INC.
)
250 BROWNS HILL CT,
)
MlDLOTl ll /\N, VA, 23 114-9510, USA
)
)
Defendant.
)
FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U.S.D.C. -Atlanta
.....
AUG 1 6 2022
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER AND NOTICE OF CONTINUED
APPEAL
1 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 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 Civil Cover Sheet
+---
Exhibit 2 DOC. 5
Plaintiffs Motion For Reconsideration of Plaintiffs
Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Exhibit 3 DOCs.7 and 2nd Report and Recommendation and Order
8
Exhibit 4 NIA
CfVIL 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 2 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. OBJECTIONS, 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 PLAINTIFF
18
F. IFP AND FILING FEES
19
II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
20
III. CERTIFICATION
23
CONCLUSION
24
CERTlFICATE OF SERVICE
26
Cases
Bilal v. Ori ver, 25 I F.3d 1346, 1349 ( I I th Cir. 200 I) ............................. , ............. .15
Conley v. G ibson, 355 U.S. 4 1, 45-46, 78 S.Ct b. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)
................................................................................................................................. 5
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)
............................................................................................................................... 18
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 6 14 (1991) ............................. 9
Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, I 307 ( 11th Cir. 2004) ............... 14
Mixon v. Corizon, Inc. , 201 2 WL 113633 1 at *2 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 30, 2012) ......... 14
3 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 3 of 26
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
PL/\lN'fIFF, R/\ISSA DJUISSl KENGNE ("Plaintiff' or "Homeowner'')
hereby submits
her response and objections to
the Final Report And
Recommendation And Order 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 Catherine M. Salinas, has recommended and ordered as follows:
ORDERED, that Plaintiffs application to proceed TFP be DENIED
RECOMMENDED and ORDERED, that Plaintiffs complaint be
DISM1SSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
and for failure to comply with a lawful order of the Court.
The recommended order must be refused for the following reasons:
( 1) Although not expressly stated on the Civil Cover Sheet, but
implied. Plainti!Ts causes or action and clai ms for relief as noted under
Plaintiff's Complaint and Request For Injunction as well as in her Motion
for Reconsideration fall under the US Constitution 14th Amendment.
Plaintiff has clarified her 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 4 of 26
Appeal that she filed on July 5th, 2022 [DOC.5, at 29-32]. Plaintiff has an
implied and express right of action under the following statutes: a) 42
U.S.C. § 11 04 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) the 14th Amendment - T itle I, and e) the 14
th
Amendment - Public Health, Safety, and Morals.
Pla intiffs claims under the 14th Amendment - Title I and the 14th
/\mcndment - Public Health, Safety, and Morals are not expressly included
in the Civil Cover sheet, but are implied in analyzing the impact that the
lack of income can have on an individual and the deprivation by ID.Me,
Inc. of the way for Plaintiff to access legally obtained income.
Furthermore, in evaluating the legal sufficiency of a complaint for
purposes of§ 19 1 S(d), the courts apply the customary standard enunciated
in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 4 1, 45-46, 78 S.Ct b. 99, IO 1-102, 2 L.Ed.2d
80 ( 1957), that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a
claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of
facts in support of his or her claim, which would entitle him or her to relief.
Plaintiff can prove the facts to support her claims 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 5 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 addition to 42 U.S.C. § 1104 Unemployment Trust Fund and 26
U .S.C. 330 I et seq. Federal Unemployment Tax Act, the 14th Amendment
- Title I and the 14th Amendment- Public Health, Safety, and Morals have
a federal question and provide for both an express and implied right of
action, which include, but are not limited to causes of action for abridging
the privileges of Plaintiff as a citizen of the United States, depriving
Plaintiff of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, and
denying Plaintiff the equal protection of the laws
1
•
(2)
Plaintiff meets all the requirements to proceed in forma
pauperis ("[ FP"); Plaintiff has submitted her arguments as well as clarified
her responses provided on the lFP form that she completed (which are
accurate) in her ''Motion For Reconsideration" 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 5th, 2022 [DOC.5, at6- l l].
(3)
Plaintiff has the right to file an appeal to proceed in IFP
w ithout having her case dismissed because she waited, as allowed by law,
1 See the website Constitution An noted: Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution
(htt ps:/ /constitution .congress.gov /browse/ amendment-14/section-1/)
·
6 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 6 of 26
to hear a ruling from the court 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 lawful order of the Court" to pay the filing fees
[Doc. 7, at 5].
( 4)
Plaintiffs case is in appeal and therefore, any arguments
in the Rcpo11 and Recommendation and order may be moot upon a ruling
or the United Sates Court of Appeals.
I.
OBJECTIONS, RESPONSES, AND ARGUMENTS TO THE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
A. OBJECTIONS, RESPONSES, AND ARGUMENTS TO STATEMENT
OF ANALYSIS 1
Judge Catherine M . Salinas stated as follows:
··The Order further notified Plaintiff that if she sought to proceed with
her lawsuit. she should.first "ensure 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 of the 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 7 of 26
proposed complaint provided any individual right of action in federal
court.2 [!d.J " [DOC 7, at 2]
Plaintiff clarified her claims in her Motion for Reconsideration (see Exhibit
2) and Motion for Appeal [DOC. SJ. A lthough Judge Catherine M . Salinas chose to
disregard Plaintiffs responses, it does not mean that Plaintiff, by law, does not have
causes of action.
Judge Catherine M. Salinas stated as follows:
"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]
Similarly, Judge Catherine M. Salinas chose to disregard Plaintiff's responses
in her Motion for Reconsideration (sec Exhibit 2) and Motion for Appeal [DOC. 5];
it does not mean that Plaintiff, by law, does not have causes of action.
42 U.S.C. § 11 04 Unemployment Trust Fund, 26 U.S.C. 3301 et seq. Federal
Unemployment Tax /\ct, the 14th Amendment - Title I, and the 14th Amendment -
Public 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
limited to causes of action for abridging the privileges of Plaintiff as a citizen of the
8 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 8 of 26
U nited States, depriving Plaintiff of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law, and deny ing Plaintiff the equal protection of the laws2.
Indeed, the Georgia Department of Labor (GDOL) has partnered with ID.me
to verify claimant identification in order to receive any types of unemployment
benefits, which makes ID.Me a state actor.
A state actor:; is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and
is therefore subject to regulation under the United States Bill of Rights, including
the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the federal and state
governments from violating cer1ain rights and freedoms. Though the term would
seem to include only persons who are directly employed by the state, the United
States Supreme Court has interpreted these amendments and laws passed pursuant
to them to cover many persons who have only an indirect relationship with the
government. Accord ing to the Supreme Court in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete
Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 61 4 ( 199 1 ), "Although the conduct of private parties lies beyond
the Constitution's scope in most instances, governmental authority may dominate an
activity to such an extent that its participants must be deemed to act with the
authority of the government and, as a result, be subject to constitutional constraints."
2 See the website Constitution A n noted: A nalysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution
(https://constitution.congress.gov/bmwse/amendment- 14/section- I/)
1 See website Cornell I.aw School
l,cgal institute Information
(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 9 of 26
For the
foregoing
reasons,
the referenced 2nd 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
Complaint be dismissed without prej udice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
for failure to comply with a lawful order of the Court.
B. OBJECTIONS, RESPONSES, AND ARGUMENTS TO STATEMENT
OF ANALYSIS 2
Judge Catherine M. Salinas stated as follows:
"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 Affidavit were applicable prior to Plaintiff
constructive discharged on November I 8th, 202 1 [DOC. 5 at 25]. The financial
affidavit is accurate; Judge Catherine M. Salinas chose to highlight elements that
would support a dismissal and ignore the full picture to represent the fair financial
situation of Plaintiff.
2-3).
Judge Catherine M. Salinas also included the following footnotes [Doc. 7 at
··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 10 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 of America, 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 if she wished to pursue this case. [Id.}.
:! l'l,11111!/f 's pro1um:cl complaint ulleges. as a basis for federal 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 Catherine M. Salinas has chosen to highlight the elements to
support a dismissal and ignore the information provided that present a fairer
representation of Plaintiffs financial situation. For example, Plaintiff provided the
following information [DOC 5, at 2 l]:
11 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 11 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 employment and retirement, does not
re.fleet that the money was used/or safety and security in view of the 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
Plaintiff to receive her unemployment benefits. ,.
In addition, Plaintiff provided the information below [DOC 5, at 22], which
also explains that Judge Catherine M. Salinas only looked at the FAIR value of the
property without looking at the mortgage on the property; Therefore, the NET
value of the property i not 500,000 it i a lot less (this is applicable to all assets
listed on the forms. Judge Catherine M. Salinas refused to look at the liabilities
12 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 12 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'latnl 1//'s liabil it ,es nn the proper! il!s I isted. particularly
1he wndominium, the land, and the abandoned house as well as the state of pre-
foreclosure 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.
Plaintiff has 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 subject matter of case number 2022C V365268 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
2022CV365268filed in Fulton County Superior Court.
13 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 13 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 moving party must submit an affidavit that demonstrates (1) an inability to pay,
(2) entitlement to redress, (3) the issues on appeal, and ( 4) good faith. The first
requirement to meet when considering a motion to proceed IFP, " .. is whether the
statements in the affidavit satisfy the requirement of poverty." Martinez v. Kristi
Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 ( 11th Cir. 2004). To show poverty, the Plaintiff
need not show that he is "absolutely destitute." Id. Instead, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that "because of his poverty, he is unable to pay for the court fees and
costs, and to support and provide necessities for himself and his dependents." Id. The
second requirements to proceed IFP on appeal, requires the moving party to state an
entitlement of redress. P laintiff has done so see Exhibit 2 and DOCs, 1, 5. The third
condition for proceeding I FP requires the moving party to clearly state the issues on
appeal. Plaintiff has done so [DOC. 5]. The fourth requirement to proceed IFP on
appeal is good faith. The test for whether an appeal is taken in good faith under
section 19 l 5(a) is whether the litigant seeks appellate review of any issue that is not
frivolous. Mixon v. Corizon, Inc., 20 12 WL 11 36331 at *2 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 30,
20 12). A claim 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 14 of 26
v. Driver, 25 1 F.3d 1346, 1349 ( 11th Cir. 2001 ). In this case, the issues on appeal,
as listed above, are not frivolous.
For the forego ing reasons, the referenced 2nd Final Report And
Recommendation J\nd Order issued should not be adopted to the extent it
recommends that Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP be denied, Plaintiffs
complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
for failure to comply with a lawful order of the Court.
C. OBJECTIONS, RESPONSES, AND ARGUMENTS TO STATEMENT
OF ANALYSIS 3
Judge Catherine M. Salinas stated as follows in her R&R:
.. Instead of' timely pay ing the filing fee and submitting an amended complaint,
Plaint{/ffiled a 678-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 authorities. [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 Plaintiff of food, 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 15 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 failed to establish subject matter
jurisdiction over her claim(s)". [DOC. 7, at 3-4)
Plaintiff submitted the following documents for an appeal:
• /\ motion, with a total number of pages equal to 33.
• Exhibit 1, which is the Complaint related to the retaliation Plaintiff was
subjected to upon reporting violations of SEC regulations, PCAOB
standards, and AICPA standards. The Complaint 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
denied 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
exclude first pages, table of contents, and exhibits.
Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Reconsideration prior to filing the Motion for
Appeal to fully present her case to Judge Catherine M. Salinas.
Furthermore, Plaintiff notes and wants to clarify that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a),
Federal Rule 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 16 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 unemployment benefits,
• The 14th Amendment - Title I, and
• The 14th Amendment - Public Health, Safety, and Morals
Furthermore, Plaintiff has not ''failed to pay the filing fee " nor "fail[ed} to
comply with a lawful order of the Court "; Plaintiff has filed a Motion for
Reconsideration within 14 days4 of the order and first R&R issued by Judge
Catherine M. Salinas and a motion for appeal within 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 foregoing reasons, the referenced 2nd Final Report And
Recommendation And Order issued should not be adopted to the extent it
recommends that Plainti rrs application to proceed IFP be denied, Plaintiffs
4 LR 7 .2 SPEC! FI C MOTi ON S (https://www .gand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/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 with the clerk of court within twenty-eight
(28) days after entry of 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 PROCEDURE - Rule 4. Appeal as of Right-
When Taken
(a) Appeal in a Civi I Case.
( I) Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal.
(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 with the district clerk within 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 17 of 26
complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and for failure to comply with a lawful order of the Court.
D. CLAIM
In evaluating the legal surticiency of a complaint for purposes of §1915(d),
the courts apply the customary standard enunciated in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41 , 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), that a complaint should not
be dismissed for fai lure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the
Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim, which would entitle
him or her to relief. Plaintiff can prove the facts to support her claims and has
provided evidence to support her claims.
Plaintiff\ Prn)crs for Relief to the Court in Plaintiff s Complaint and Request
For Injunction include, but is not limited to, a Court' s request to "Grant any such
additional relief to Plaintiff in law or equity as the Court deems just and proper under
the circumstances." Plainti ffs request includes actual and punitive damages.
E. OTHER CASES FILED BY PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff has requested to proceed in 1 FP on three (3) different cases that shed
fi led in the U.S. District Court for the
orthern District, Atlanta Division all related
to the retaliation practices that she faced upon reporting a fraud at BDO USA, LLP
where she was previously employed as an IT Audit Manager. The cases numbers are
18 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 18 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
Division 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
Plaintiffs 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 thci r 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 dismissed. 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 will have her day in Court.
19 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 19 of 26
II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Plaintiffs case fa lls under the following 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 Plaintiff's state law and regulations 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, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, and
Rockdale.
Pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1391, a civil action may be brought in a judicial
district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred, or a substantial 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
subject to personal jurisdiction 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 20 of 26
shall be deemed to reside 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 which 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
because 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)
To 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 for eq ual rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction
of the United States;
21 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 21 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
right to vote;
(5)
To exercise such other powers, not contrary to the Constitution,
as are or may be given to such courts by law.
Venue is proper in this Court because al I 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 § 9-10-91, 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, through its agents committed the acts that are the subject
matter of this lawsuit 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.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant ID.Me, Inc. because
Defendant ID.Mc, [nc. and its agents and employees, have ongoing and systematic
contacts with the State of Georgia, maintains headquarter offices in the State of
Georgia, and reside in the State of Georgia, and have committed the acts that are
the subject matter of this 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 22 of 26
Plaintiff Raissa Djuissi Kengne has standing to bring this Complaint in
Court because she will 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.
Accordingly, venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 90, 28 U.S. Code§
1391 , 28 U.S. Code§ 1343, and Georgia Civil 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
1 1.
23 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 23 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 Clerk's Office may result in the dismissal of mv case.
-
✓
CONCLUSION
For the
foregoing
reasons, the referenced 2 nd
Final Report And
Recommendation And Order issued (in relation 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
Plaintiffs application to proceed IFP be denied, Plaintiffs complaint be dismissed
without prej udice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure 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 24 of 26
Dated: August I 5th, 2022
Physical J\ddrcss:
1280W. Peachtree ST NW. Unit 2 109
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 932- 165 1
Emai I: cianc~cya2022({i\gma i I .com
State of Georgia
County of Fulton
Respectfully submitted,
Raissa Djuissi Kengne
Pro Se
Mailing Address:
570 Piedmont Ave. NE #55166
Atlanta, GA 30308
This instrument was acknowledged before me this 15th day of August (month),
2022 (year), by Raissa Dj uissi Kengne (name of signer).
/
Personally Known
I
Produced Identification
Type and # of ID - Driver's License#
(Seal)
Jocelyn Algarin
NOTARY PUBLIC
Cobb County, GEORGIA
My Commission Expires 03/08/2026
Notary Public, State of Georgia
25 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 25 of 26
C ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 161\ 2022, all counsel of
record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served a
true and correct copy of the foregoing document using the Cou1t's CM/ECF system,
in compliance with Local Rules, by mailing the same, certified mail with return
receipt, to the address I isted below.
ID.ME, INC.
COGENCY GLOBAL INC.
250 BROWNS HILL CT,
MIDLOTIII AN, VA, 23 11 4 - 9510, USA
Respectfully submitted,
~
~-~
\
1 ..
Raissa Djuissi Kengne
Pro Se
Mailing /\ddress:
570 Piedmont /\ ve. NE #55 166
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: ( 404) 932-1561
cianeseya2022~i)gmai I .com
Physical Address:
1280 W. Peachtree ST NW. Unit 2 109
Atlanta, GA 30309
26 of 26
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 9 Filed 08/16/22 Page 26 of 26