Cato

Two groups of plaintiffs, Jewel Cato, Joyce Cato, Howard Cato and Edward Cato; and Leerma Patterson, Charles Patterson, and Bobbie Trice Johnson (collectively “Cato”), filed nearly identical complaints in forma pauperis against the United States for damages due to the enslavement of African Americans and subsequent discrimination against them, for an acknowledgment of discrimination, and for an apology. 1 The district court in both cases dismissed the complaints prior to service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d).

We have carefully considered Cato’s pleading and the arguments of appellate counsel. On our own, we have tried to conceive of possibilities for stating a cognizable claim. As Judge Armstrong stated so well:

To us, as to the district court, it is clear that this complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Cato’s theories of liability either fall outside the limited waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States, or otherwise are not within the jurisdiction of the federal *1106 courts. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

I

Cato’s complaint seeks compensation of $100,000,000 for forced, ancestral indoctrination into a foreign society;…