UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Debbie I. Glaude

v. Civil No. 07-cv-138-SM

United States Army

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Debbie Glaude’s complaint against the

United States Army (document no. 1). Because Ms. Glaude is

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, the matter is before me

for preliminary review to determine, among other things, whether

the complaint states any claim upon which relief might be

granted. See United States District Court for the District of

New Hampshire Local Rule (“LR”) 4.3(d)(1)(B). As fully explained

herein, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed.

Standard of Review

Under this Court’s local rules, when a plaintiff commences

an action pro se and in forma pauperis, the magistrate judge is

directed to conduct a preliminary review. LR 4.3(d)(1)(B). In

conducting the preliminary review, the Court construes pro se

pleadings liberally, however inartfully pleaded. See Erickson v.

Case 1:07-cv-00138-SM Document 4 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 5
2

Pardus, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (following

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) and Haines v. Kerner,

404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) to construe pro se pleadings

liberally in favor of the pro se party). “The policy behind

affording pro se plaintiffs liberal interpretation is that if

they present sufficient facts, the court may intuit the correct

cause of action, even if it was imperfectly pled.” See Castro v.

United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003) (noting that courts may

construe pro se pleadings so as to avoid inappropriately

stringent rules and unnecessary dismissals of claims); Ahmed v.

Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997). All of the

factual assertions made by a pro se plaintiff and inferences

reasonably drawn therefrom must be accepted as true. See id.

This review ensures that pro se pleadings are given fair and

meaningful consideration. 

Discussion

Generously construing the complaint in plaintiff’s favor,

Debbie Glaude states that her husband, Jeffrey Glaude, is a

member of the armed forces. During their relationship, Jeffrey

has been stationed in Korea and Colorado. Plaintiff claims that

her efforts to obtain information addressing her concerns about

Case 1:07-cv-00138-SM Document 4 Filed 10/11/07 Page 2 of 5
3

her husband’s mental health either have not been appropriately

responded to, or have been entirely ignored, by the United States

Army. 

Plaintiff has sued the United States Army, alleging that it

has failed to provide her with information and assistance that it

was obliged to provide to her. Glaude does not claim a

particular violation of any specific statutory or constitutional

right. As a department of the federal government, this action

against the United States Army is fairly understood as an action

against the United States itself. See Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U.S.

57, 58 (1963) (suit against an executive department of the United

States, or against federal employees in their official capacities

is a suit against the United States).

The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit, unless

it consents to be sued. See Limar Shipping, Ltd. v. United

States, 324 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2003) (citing United States v.

Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941)); Murphy v. United States, 45

F.3d 520, 522 (1st Cir. 1995). Plaintiff must plead a specific

statute that both gives rise to her cause of action and contains

an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity. See Sanchez-Mariani v.

Ellingwood, 691 F.2d 592, 596 (1st Cir. 1982) (suit barred by

Case 1:07-cv-00138-SM Document 4 Filed 10/11/07 Page 3 of 5
4

sovereign immunity where plaintiff has made no effort to indicate

basis upon which immunity would be waived for damages action

against United States); see also Narragansett Indian Tribe v.

Rhode Island, 449 F.3d 16, 39 (1st Cir. 2006) (acknowledging

Supreme Court’s consistent view that waiver or abrogation of

sovereign immunity must be unequivocal and explicit) (internal

citations omitted); Andrean v. Sec’y of the U.S. Army, 840 F.

Supp. 1414, 1421 (D. Kan. 1993) (“To state a claim for which

relief can be granted as to the United States, a plaintiff must

allege a specific statute containing a waiver of sovereign

immunity.”). 

A suit is considered brought against a sovereign if the

relief sought would come from the public treasury, interfere with

public administration, or would restrain or compel government

action. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S.

89, 101 n.11 (1984) (citing Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 620

(1963)). Here, plaintiff names the United States Army as a

defendant to her action, and requests relief that would, if

granted, divest the public coffers of one million dollars. 

Accordingly, plaintiff has brought suit against the United States

as sovereign. Plaintiff has not, however, met her burden of

Case 1:07-cv-00138-SM Document 4 Filed 10/11/07 Page 4 of 5
5

pleading a specific statute that waives the immunity afforded the

United States as a sovereign entity. I find, therefore, that the

only defendant named to this action is immune from suit.

Conclusion

For the reasons explained herein, I recommend that the

complaint be dismissed in its entirety. Any objections to this

report and recommendation must be filed within ten (10) days of

receipt of this notice. Failure to file objections within the

specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s

order. See Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979

F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Valencia-Copete,

792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 11, 2007 

cc: Debbie I. Glaude, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00138-SM Document 4 Filed 10/11/07 Page 5 of 5