RUSHING v. STATE OF FLORIDA, No. 1:2021cv02099 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 08/11/2021. (zsb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
RUSHING v. STATE OF FLORIDA Doc. 3 Case 1:21-cv-02099-UNA Document 3 Filed 08/11/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED AUG 11 2021 SHAUN RUSHING, Plaintiff, STATE OF FLORIDA, Defendant. Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 21-2099 (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 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, 1 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. The amendment applies 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-02099-UNA Document 3 Filed 08/11/21 Page 2 of 2 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). 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.
