Court Opinion

ID: 2681416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-06-30 21:01:27.811816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:19.255439
License: Public Domain

FILED

UNITED s'rArEs Drsrklcr CoURr JUN 3 0 2014
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Cler|<. U.S. Distrlct & Bankruptcy
Courts for the Dlstrlct of columbia

Dontavious "Tay" Smith, )
)
Plaintiff, )

) n ¢ .

v. ) C1v1l Actlon No.  __ l j 
)
President Barack Obama et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and
application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and
dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matterjurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(h)(3)
(requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matter
jurisdiction is wanting).

P1aintiff is a resident of Cocoa, Florida. He sues President Barack Obama in his official
capacity, Attomey General Eric Holder in his official capacity, various United States agencies,
and Florida’s Govemor Rick Scott in his official capacity for violations of the Racketeer
lnfluenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. Under the doctrine
of sovereign immunity, the federal govemment is subject to suit only upon consent, which must
be clear and unequivocal. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 53 5, 538 (1980) (citation omitted).
"Congress [has] not waive[d] the United States' sovereign immunity for suits for treble damages

under the RICO Act," Abou-Hussez'n v. Mabus, 953 F. Supp. 2d 251, 263 (D.D.C. 201 3) (citing

Norris v, Dep't ofDefense, No. 96-5326, 1997 WL 362495, at *1 (D.C. Cir. May 5, 1997)), and
“sovereign immunity isjurisdictional in nature." FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994).

Similarly, the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution immunizes a state from suit in
federal court, unless immunity is Waived.l Plaintiff’s RICO claim against Govemor Scott in his
official capacity is, too, foreclosed. See Vierria v. Calzfornz'a Highway Patrol, 664 F. Supp. 2d
1219, 1232 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Alden v. Maz'ne, 527 U.S. 706, 727 (1999); Pennhurst State
Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-01 (1984);Ken1‘uclc_v v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159,
166 (1985)).

Finally, to the extent that plaintiff is asserting tort claims against the federal defendants
separate from the RICO statute, he has not indicated that he has exhausted his administrative
remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") by "first present[ing] the claim to the
appropriate Federal agency. . . .," 28 U.S.C. § 2675, and this exhaustion requirement is
jurisdictional See GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 917-20 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Jackson
v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Stokes v. U’.S. Postal Service, 937 F. Supp,
1], 14 (D.D.C. 1996); see also Abdurrahman v. Engstrom, 168 Fed.Appx. 445, 445 (D.C. Cir.
2005) (per curiam) ("[T]he district court properly dismissed case [based on unexhausted FTCA
claim] for lack of subject matterjurisdiction."). Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment shields
any such claims against Govemor Scott in his official capacity and the complaint’s allegations

simply do not support a personal-capacity claim against him or, for that matter, against President

' The amendment provides in pertinent part: "[t]he judicial power of the United States shall not

be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by Citizens of another State." U.S. Const. amend. XI. lt is long established that
this amendment applies equally to suits brought by citizens against their own states. See
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662~63 (1974); h’ans v. Louz`siana, 134 U.S. 1, 13-15 (1890).

2

Obama and Attomey General Holder. Hence, this case will be dismissed A separate Order

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

 

/'r~

nited S te_s District Judge

June l/rl ,2014  H»'//?JX""D