[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10200

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

RESHAWN ARMSTRONG, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, 

Defendants-Appellees.

USCA11 Case: 21-10200 Date Filed: 12/21/2021 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10200

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 7:20-cv-00796-RDP

____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

Reshawn Armstrong, proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of her claims against the federal government under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and its denial of her motion for default judgment on 

those claims. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

I. 

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Center v. Sec'y, Dep't of 

Homeland Sec., 895 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2018). We construe 

pro se filings more liberally than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th Cir. 1990). 

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing federal subject 

matter jurisdiction. Williams v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians, 839 

F.3d 1312, 1314 (11th Cir. 2016). If there is a deficiency in subject 

matter jurisdiction, district courts are constitutionally obligated to 

dismiss the action. Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 

1268 (11th Cir. 2013). Indeed, a court “may not consider the merits 

USCA11 Case: 21-10200 Date Filed: 12/21/2021 Page: 2 of 4
21-10200 Opinion of the Court 3

of [a] complaint unless and until [it is] assured of [its] subject matter 

jurisdiction.” Id. at 1269 (quoting Belleri v. United States, 712 F.3d 

543, 547 (11th Cir. 2013)). 

Courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over claims 

against the United States government unless it consents to be sued. 

Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1188 

(11th Cir. 2011). The United States can consent to be sued by expressly giving its consent by statute, and the terms of the statute 

waiving immunity are strictly construed. Id. Title I of the FMLA 

grants private workers rights to leave from work in certain circumstances and a private right of action to remedy violations. 29 U.S.C. 

§§ 2612, 2615, 2617(a)(2); see also id. § 2611(2)(B)(i) (excluding federal employees from Title I). Title II of the FMLA grants federal 

employees the right to leave from work but does not provide a private cause of action to address FMLA violations. See 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 6381–87 (excluding private right of action in subchapter of the 

United States Code addressing FMLA for federal employees). 

Here, we conclude that the district court did not err. Armstrong was a federal employee, and thus, she could not bring an 

FMLA claim against the government under Title I. See 

§ 2611(2)(B)(i) And Title II of the FMLA does not provide a private 

cause of action, so the United States has not waived its sovereign 

immunity to FMLA claims. See §§ 6381–87. Therefore, the district 

court did not err by dismissing her FMLA claims on this basis. 

Christian Coal. of Florida, 662 F.3d at 1188. Relatedly, it did not 

err by denying her motion for default judgment because, given its 

USCA11 Case: 21-10200 Date Filed: 12/21/2021 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 21-10200

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it was powerless to do anything 

else. See Travaglio, 735 F.3d at 1268. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 21-10200 Date Filed: 12/21/2021 Page: 4 of 4