McKendall v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District, No. 2:2015cv02631 - Document 19 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 17 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

Download PDF
McKendall v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District Doc. 19 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A LARRY J. MCKEN DALL, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 15 -2 6 3 1 U .S. ARMY CORPS OF EN GIN EERS, N EW ORLEAN S D ISTRICT, D e fe n d an t SECTION : “E”( 2 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Plaintiff filed an am ended com plaint on March 18, 20 16. 1 In response, the Governm ent filed a m otion to dism iss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). 2 The m otion is based on the Governm ent’s argum ent that the Court lacks subject-m atter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim s and, as a result, his claim s should be dism issed. Plaintiff’s opposition to the m otion was due on April 12, 20 16. No opposition was filed. Even if Plaintiff had filed an opposition, the Governm ent’s argum ent that the Court lacks subject-m atter jurisdiction would prevail. “Federal courts are courts of lim ited jurisdiction; without jurisdiction conferred by statute, they lack the power to adjudicate claim s.”3 A m otion to dism iss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure challenges a federal court’s subject-m atter jurisdiction. 4 Under Rule 12(b)(1), “[a] case is properly dism issed for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to 1 R. Doc. 16. R. Doc. 17. 3 In re FEMA Trailer Form aldehy de Products Liab. Litig. (Mississippi Plaintiffs), 668 F.3d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 20 12). 4 See F ED . R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com adjudicate the case.”5 The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that the district court possesses subject-m atter jurisdiction. 6 In this case, the Governm ent is correct that the Court lacks subject-m atter jurisdiction over this action. The United States and its agencies are im m une from suit, except to the extent that sovereign im m unity is waived. 7 Thus, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claim s unless there is som e specific waiver of im m unity to the claim s Plaintiff attem pts to assert against the Governm ent. It is Plaintiff’s burden to dem onstrate that this Court has subject-m atter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden. Even construing Plaintiff’s am ended com plaint liberally in light of his pro se status, the Court agrees with the Governm ent that the Plaintiff has not dem onstrated a waiver of sovereign im m unity with respect to his claim s. Accordingly; IT IS ORD ERED that the Governm ents Rule 12(b)(1) m otion to dism iss is GRAN TED , and Plaintiff’s claim s are D ISMISSED W ITH PREJU D ICE. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 10 th d ay o f Ju n e , 2 0 16 . _______ ________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 5 Hom e Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v . City of Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d 10 0 6, 10 10 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 6 Ram m ing v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 20 0 1). 7 See, e.g., La. Dep’t of Environm ental Quality v. EPA, 730 F.3d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 20 13). 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.