UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JAMES R. RAYBURN, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

VS.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT,

Defendant.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:05-CV-0936-G

)

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is the motion of defendant, United States Department of

Housing and Urban Development (“HUD” or “the defendant”), to dismiss the

plaintiffs’ claims against it. The plaintiffs, James R. Rayburn and Diane D. Rayburn

(“Rayburns” or “the plaintiffs”), failed to respond to the motion, and for the reasons

discussed below, the defendant’s motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 10, 2005, the plaintiffs initiated this action against HUD, seeking a

declaration that their residence was designed and constructed pursuant to a HUD-

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00936-G Document 7 Filed 09/09/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID 324
- 2 -

funded study and accordingly, is covered by a 30-year HUD foundation warranty. 

See Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint and Request for Declaratory Relief (“Plaintiffs’

Original Complaint”). Plaintiffs original complaint alleged that “[t]he Court has

jurisdiction of the lawsuit over the lawsuit [sic] because the action arises under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 2202.” Plaintiffs’ Original

Complaint ¶ 3.

On the same day suit was filed, the court issued an order concluding that no

valid basis for subject matter jurisdiction was alleged in the complaint. Order, filed

May 10, 2005, at 2. The court noted that the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.

§§ 2201-2202, does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on the federal courts. Id. at

1; see Skelly Oil Company v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 339 U.S. 667, 671 (1950) (the

Declaratory Judgment Act, being procedural only, did not extend the subject matter

jurisdiction of the federal courts); Red Lobster Inns of America, Inc. v. New England Oyster

House, Inc., 524 F.2d 968, 969 (5th Cir. 1975) (“the Declaratory Judgment Act . . .

does not independently confer federal jurisdiction.”). The court also observed that

Rule 57 cannot sustain jurisdiction because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 82

explicitly states that “[t]hese rules shall not be construed to extend . . . the

jurisdiction of the United States district courts.” Order, filed May 10, 2005, at 2. 

The court also granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to cure the

defect by May 20, 2005. Id. On that same date, the plaintiffs amended their

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00936-G Document 7 Filed 09/09/05 Page 2 of 6 PageID 325
- 3 -

complaint alleging jurisdiction under Article III, § 2 of the United States

Constitution. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and Request for Declaratory

Relief (“Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint”) ¶ 3. Plaintiffs assert that Article III,

§ 2 provides in pertinent part that the judicial power of the federal court “shall extend

to all Cases, in Law and Equity, . . . to which the United States shall be a Party,” and

that “because the Defendant is the United States Department of Housing and Urban

Development, an agency of the United States, the Court has jurisdiction over this

controversy.” Id.

On July 29, 2005, the defendant filed this motion to dismiss. Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss, and Brief in Support Thereof (“Motion to Dismiss”).

II. ANALYSIS

HUD argues, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), that the court

should dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the “plaintiffs

hav[e] failed to base their declaratory judgment claim against HUD on a specific

federal statute constituting a waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States.” 

Motion to Dismiss at 3. 

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction -- The Legal Standard

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

Insurance Company of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Owen Equipment and Erection

Company v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). A federal court may exercise

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00936-G Document 7 Filed 09/09/05 Page 3 of 6 PageID 326
- 4 -

jurisdiction over cases only as expressly provided by the Constitution and laws of the

United States. See U.S. CONST. art. III §§ 1-2; see also Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.

Federal law gives the federal district courts original jurisdiction over “all civil actions

arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331. A party seeking relief in a federal district court bears the burden of

establishing the subject matter jurisdiction of that court. United States v. Hays, 515

U.S. 737, 743 (1995); McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Indiana, Inc.,

298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Langley v. Jackson State University, 14 F.3d 1070, 1073

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 811 (1994).

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the dismissal

of a case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). 

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

must be considered by the court before any other challenge because “the court must

find jurisdiction before determining the validity of a claim.” Moran v. Kingdom of

Saudia Arabia, 27 F.3d 169, 172 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal citation omitted); see also

Ruhrgras AG v. Marathon Oil Company, 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999) (“The requirement

that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter . . . is inflexible and without

exception”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

On a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, which “concerns the court’s ‘very power to hear

the case . . . [,] the trial court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00936-G Document 7 Filed 09/09/05 Page 4 of 6 PageID 327
- 5 -

existence of its power to hear the case.’” MDPhysicians & Associates, Inc. v. State Board

of Insurance, 957 F.2d 178, 181 (5th Cir.) (quoting Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d

404, 413 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 897 (1981)), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 861

(1992). In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the court may rely on:

“1) the complaint alone; 2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts; or

3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts and the court’s resolution of

disputed facts.” MCG, Inc. v. Great Western Energy Corporation, 896 F.2d 170, 176

(5th Cir. 1990) (citing Williamson, 645 F.2d at 413). 

B. The Rayburns’ Jurisdictional Basis

The Rayburns request a declaration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 57 and U.S.C. § 2201, 2202. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint ¶ 13. 

They allege jurisdiction is proper under Article III, § 2 of the United States

Constitution. Id. ¶ 3. The United States, along with its agencies and

instrumentalities, enjoys immunity from suit unless that immunity has been expressly

waived by Congress. In re Supreme Beef Processors, Inc., 391 F.3d 629, 633 (5th Cir.

2004) (holding the United States Department of Agriculture immune from suit

without an express waiver of immunity by Congress). Absent a specific statutory

consent to suit, a court does not have jurisdiction over an action against the United

States and must dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(1). In re Supreme Beef, 391 F.3d at 633; see also United States v. White Mountain

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00936-G Document 7 Filed 09/09/05 Page 5 of 6 PageID 328
- 6 -

Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472 (2003) (“Jurisdiction over any suit against the

Government requires a clear statement from the United States waiving sovereign

immunity”). 

The Rayburns have not provided a specific statutory consent to suit. They

have merely pointed to Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution as the basis

for subject matter jurisdiction in this case. First Amended Complaint at 2. This is

not, however, an express waiver of immunity by Congress.

The court concludes that Congress has not provided a clear statement waiving

sovereign immunity in this case. As a result, this court does not have subject matter

jurisdiction over the Rayburns’ complaint and request for declaratory relief. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’

first amended complaint and request for declaratory relief is GRANTED. Judgment

will be entered dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

September 9, 2005.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00936-G Document 7 Filed 09/09/05 Page 6 of 6 PageID 329