Case ID: f-appx_100/html/0827-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lawrence L. KELLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-3371.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    June 16, 2004.
    Lawrence L. Kelly, Topeka, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    D. Brad Bailey, Nancy M. Caplinger, Office of the United States Attorney, Topeka, KS, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before SEYMOUR, LUCERO, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.

Lawrence Kelly filed suit pro se against the United States Department of Justice in Kansas federal district court. He captioned his initial pleading “unconstitutionality” and referenced 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 245 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982. Rec. 10 at 1. The district court granted the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss, id. at 3, and we affirm.

The Justice Department is undeniably an arm of the United States Government. For a suit against the United States to be viable, “[a] waiver of the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text.” Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192, 116 S.Ct. 2092, 135 L.Ed.2d 486 (1996). We must strictly construe any waiver of sovereign immunity, and where one is not explicit, it cannot be implied. Id. None of the statutes Mr. Kelly cites effect a waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity by providing that an action may be brought directly against the United States. As such, “the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the claim.” Steele v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 355 F.3d 1204, 1213 (10th Cir.2003).

Because we conclude the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we need not review that court’s alternative dismissal for failure to state a claim. The district court’s dismissal of Mr. Kelly’s complaint is AFFIRMED. 
      
       After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.