Rushing v. State of Missouri

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG. 23, 2021 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy

Court for the District of Columbia SHAUN RUSHING, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 21-2133 (UNA) v. )

)

STATE OF MISSOURI, )

)

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 Missouri. 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 Missouri’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 23, 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).