RUSHING v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, No. 1:2021cv02098 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 08/10/2021. (zsb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
RUSHING v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Doc. 3 Case 1:21-cv-02098-UNA Document 3 Filed 08/10/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED AUG 10 2021 SHAUN RUSHING, Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 21-2098 (UNA) 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 Federal Bureau of Investigation. 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). Plaintiff sues the FBI based on his alleged services as an informant. He seeks “$110 Trillon dollars.” Compl. at 1. Sovereign immunity bars a suit against the United States and its agencies except 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). The Tucker Act gives the United States Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim [exceeding $10,000] against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-02098-UNA Document 3 Filed 08/10/21 Page 2 of 2 Kidwell v. Dep't of Army, Bd. for Correction of Mil. Recs., 56 F.3d 279, 283 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1491). Plaintiff’s terse complaint is grounded upon an alleged contractual relationship. This and the amount sought deprive this Court of jurisdiction. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. _________/s/_______________ EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge Date: August 10, 2021 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
