UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
[DISTRICT NAME]
[PLAINTIFF NAME(S)],
Plaintiff(s),
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. ______
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
To Secure the Constitutional Right to Survival Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
1. This is a civil rights action brought under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Plaintiff(s) assert that the federal government has violated its constitutional obligation to protect the right to life by constructing and maintaining an economic system that conditions survival on access to taxed and regulated goods, while refusing to ensure access to those goods for citizens who are structurally excluded from economic participation.
3. The government’s failure constitutes a constructive deprivation of life, a denial of equal protection, and an inconsistent application of its asserted interest in preserving life, violating core constitutional principles.
4. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
5. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
6. Plaintiff(s): [Name(s)] is/are United States citizens who currently lack consistent access to life-sustaining necessities due to systemic economic exclusion and regulatory barriers maintained by the federal government.
7. Defendant: The United States of America, through its legislative and executive agencies, controls the legal framework governing access to essential resources necessary for survival, including food, shelter, healthcare, and utilities.
8. The Plaintiff(s) reside under economic conditions directly shaped by federal regulation of labor, housing, healthcare, taxation, and public infrastructure.
9. These systems collectively restrict access to food, shelter, utilities, and healthcare by requiring monetary payment, while failing to guarantee any means of access for persons who cannot afford them.
10. Structural barriers—including disability, unemployment, and systemic exclusion—impede access to income and participation in the regulated economy, leaving the Plaintiff(s) unable to meet basic survival needs.
11. At the same time, the government imposes broad restrictions on subsistence alternatives such as land cultivation, autonomous housing, and non-monetary exchange, effectively eliminating non-economic paths to survival.
12. Federal and local laws criminalize unauthorized shelter on public land, require land taxes and permits for self-built housing, and impose zoning rules that block subsistence strategies, creating a condition of dependency.
13. This government-created dependency establishes a condition of constructive custody, where citizens are restrained by systemic forces without receiving the constitutional protections afforded to those physically restrained.
14. Incarcerated individuals are entitled to food, shelter, and healthcare as a matter of constitutional duty. The Plaintiff(s), although nominally free, are functionally constrained by economic conditions imposed by the government.
15. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court upheld the government’s interest in preserving prenatal life. That interest must logically extend to postnatal life endangered by preventable deprivation under government systems.
16. Government institutions, public education, and civic discourse all promote the belief that Americans have a constitutional 'right to life,' yet no enforceable right to survival necessities is recognized in federal law.
17. By failing to clarify this legal reality or correct widespread constitutional misapprehension, the government fosters unjust reliance and perpetuates informational harm that impairs the public's ability to understand and assert their rights.
18. This informational failure compounds the denial of due process by denying citizens the clarity required to assess their legal position and seek redress for harm inflicted through systemic deprivation.
19. The Plaintiff(s) reside under economic conditions directly shaped by federal regulation of wages, housing markets, taxation, healthcare access, and infrastructure.
20. These conditions include structural exclusion from employment, underemployment, disability-related barriers, and digital access gaps which render Plaintiff(s) unable to meet the cost of survival.
21. While access to life-sustaining resources (e.g., food, water, electricity, healthcare, shelter) is monetized, taxed, and regulated, there exists no federal guarantee of such access for persons unable to pay.
COUNT I — VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (Substantive Due Process – Deprivation of the Right to Life)
22. Plaintiff(s) reallege the allegations above.
23. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals not only from direct state action but from government-created danger and deliberate indifference where the government imposes control or creates dependency.
24. Through its control over survival-essential resources and restrictions on alternative survival strategies, the government imposes lethal dependency without redress.
25. This constitutes a constructive deprivation of life, in violation of substantive due process.
COUNT II — VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (Equal Protection – Disparate Survival Outcomes)
26. Plaintiff(s) reallege the allegations above.
27. Equal Protection is denied when the federal government guarantees life-sustaining access to the incarcerated and unborn, yet disclaims such protections for impoverished citizens.
28. The failure to address this disparity violates the Fourteenth Amendment's core protections against arbitrary governance and unjust classification.
COUNT III — VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS (Inconsistency with Government’s Claimed Interest in Life – Dobbs Contradiction)
29. Plaintiff(s) reallege the allegations above.
30. The government’s reliance on Dobbs to protect prenatal life implies an interest in life generally. To protect potential life while failing to protect actual life from foreseeable harm is logically inconsistent and constitutionally irrational.
COUNT IV — VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS (Failure to Afford Survival Protections Equal to Incarcerated Individuals)
31. Plaintiff(s) reallege the allegations above.
32. The Constitution requires equitable protection for similarly situated persons. The distinction between incarcerated and economically restrained persons is functionally arbitrary when both depend on the government for survival.
COUNT V — VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS (Constructive Custody through Economic Dependency)
33. Plaintiff(s) reallege the allegations above.
34. Government-created economic structures from which there is no viable exit constitute constructive custody. Once the government creates dependence, it assumes a constitutional duty of care. Its refusal to act violates the Fifth Amendment.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff(s) respectfully request that this Court:
A. Declare that the federal government’s systemic failure to ensure access to basic survival resources—when such access is regulated, taxed, or controlled—violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments;
B. Declare that the government’s interest in preserving life, as articulated in Dobbs, must extend consistently to postnatal life;
C. Declare that denying survival rights to economically vulnerable citizens, while guaranteeing them to incarcerated individuals, constitutes unequal protection and arbitrary application of the Constitution;
D. Issue an injunction requiring the federal government to:
• Implement a constitutional floor for survival: food, shelter, utilities, and healthcare;
• Prevent utility shutoffs, evictions, or denial of basic services for those in economic distress;
• Develop federal policies that reflect consistent protection of the right to life;
E. Award attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
F. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
APPENDIX A: CASE LAW PRECEDENTS
I. Government Duty of Care and Institutional Responsibility
• Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) – Established the government’s obligation to provide medical care to prisoners.
• Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) – Affirmed the state's duty to provide safety and care where it imposes custody.
• Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011) – Found that failure to provide adequate prison conditions violates constitutional rights.
• Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) – Affirmed that the state has a legitimate interest in preserving life.
II. Economic Inequality, Equal Protection, and Access to Rights
• Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956) – Found that economic status cannot determine access to constitutional protections.
• Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) – Held that denying education to undocumented children violated Equal Protection.
• Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) – Recognized the significance of unequal distribution of government resources.
III. Government-Created Dependency and Constructive Custody
• DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) – Recognized government duty where it imposes custodial control.
• Kohlhaas v. State of Alaska, 518 P.3d 939 (Alaska 2022) – Addressed burdens created by government limiting access to essential resources.
IV. Right to Life and Government Interest in Life Preservation
• Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) – Upheld a state’s asserted interest in preserving life.
• Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) – Affirmed the government’s broad interest in the preservation of human life.