Lucas v. United States

FILED
7/9/2020
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Columbia
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STEPHANIE LADONNA LUCAS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 20-1706 (UNA)
)
UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and her complaint against the United States.
The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter
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). Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States may be sued only upon
consent, which must be clear and unequivocal. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538
(1980) (citation omitted). A waiver of sovereign immunity “must be unequivocally expressed in
statutory text, and [it cannot] be implied.” Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (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.
1
Plaintiff resides in St. Paul, Minnesota. She alleges that she and her family have been
victims of harassment, stalking, and abuse. Compl. ¶ III. Plaintiff has sued the United States for
the alleged failure of unspecified agencies “to investigate, prosecute and obstruct justice” when
claims are “reported to local, state and federal law enforcement.” Id. She seeks $80,000 in
“punitive damages,” as well as “victims’ compensation and witness protection” for her and her
family. Id. ¶ IV.
Plaintiff has invoked the U.S. Constitution, see Compl. ¶ III, but Congress has not waived
the United States’ immunity from personal injury lawsuits based on constitutional violations.
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 478 (1994). In addition, the United States
Attorney General has absolute discretion in deciding whether to investigate claims for possible
criminal or civil prosecution, and, as a general rule applicable here, such decisions are not
subject to judicial review. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480-81 (D.C. Cir.
1995); see Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985) (“[A]n agency’s decision not to
prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally
committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.”). Notably, the Supreme Court’s “recognition of
the existence of discretion is attributable in no small part to the general unsuitability for judicial
review of agency decisions to refuse enforcement.” Heckler, 470 U.S. at 831. Accordingly, this
case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge
DATE: July 9, 2020
2