Rushing v. State of Florida

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED

AUG 11 2021 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy SHAUN RUSHING, ) Court for the District of Columbia

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 21-2099 (UNA)

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and his Complaint against the State of Florida. The application will be granted, and this case will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute,” and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action.

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution immunizes a State from suit in federal court, unless immunity is waived. 1 Plaintiff, a resident of Grand Rapids, Michigan, has not demonstrated Florida’s waiver of immunity. See Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112, 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he party claiming subject matter jurisdiction . . . has the burden to demonstrate that it exists.”) (citation omitted)). Consequently, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

_________/s/_______________ EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge Date: August 11, 2021 equally to suits brought by citizens against their own states. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 13-15 (1890).