Poole v. U. S. Department of Education, No. 2:2021cv00988 - Document 8 (S.D. Ohio 2021)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 6 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Sarah D. Morrison on 6/16/2021. (tb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF

Poole v. U. S. Department of Education Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION SHANE TYWON POOLE, Plaintiff, : v. Case No. 2:21-cv-988 Judge Sarah D. Morrison Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, : Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant United States Department of Education’s Motion to Dismiss. (Mot to Dismiss, ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff Shane Tywon Poole did not respond and the time for doing so has now passed. Accordingly, the matter is ripe for consideration. For the reasons set forth below, the Department’s Motion is GRANTED. Proceeding without assistance of counsel, Mr. Poole filed his Complaint in March 2021. (Compl., ECF No. 4.) The Complaint includes the name and address for each Mr. Poole and the Department. (Id., 1, 2.) In its entirety, the Complaint alleges: My wallet was stolen and the theive who stole my wallet use my identity and stole money from the US Department of education i have a police report with the guy the lima police department caught with my ID. I’m suing the US Department of education to remove the defaulted loan off my credit report and to go after the guy that stole my identity. Dockets.Justia.com (Id., 3) (as written). The Complaint does not identify the source of subject matter jurisdiction. (Id., 2.) The Department now seeks to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Mot. to Dismiss.) Because the first argument is well-taken and dispositive, the Court does not address the second. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides for dismissal when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Without subject matter jurisdiction, a federal court lacks authority to hear a case. Thornton v. Sw. Detroit Hosp., 895 F.2d 1131, 1133 (6th Cir. 1990). “Motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction fall into two general categories: facial attacks and factual attacks.” United States v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 1994). A facial attack under Rule 12(b)(1) “questions merely the sufficiency of the pleading[,]” and the court therefore takes the allegations in the complaint as true. Gentek Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. SherwinWilliams Co., 491 F.3d 320, 330 (6th Cir. 2007). To survive a facial attack, the complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for jurisdiction. Rote v. Zel Custom Mfg. LLC, 816 F.3d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)). A factual attack is a challenge to the factual existence of subject matter jurisdiction. No presumption of truth applies to the factual allegations. Glob. Tech., Inc. v. Yubei (XinXiang) Power Steering Sys. Co., Ltd., 807 F.3d 806, 810 (6th Cir. 2015). When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, “the plaintiff has the burden 2 of proving jurisdiction in order to survive the motion.” Moir v. Greater Cleveland Reg’l Transit Auth., 895 F.2d 266, 269 (6th Cir. 1990). The Department’s Motion to Dismiss attacks the sufficiency of Mr. Poole’s jurisdictional allegations. (See Mot. to Dismiss.) Specifically, the Department argues that Mr. Poole has not identified a waiver of the Department’s sovereign immunity, and that no applicable waiver in fact exists. (Id., 7, 10.) “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (citations omitted). “Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature . . . [and] the terms of the United States’ consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” Id. (internal quotation and original alteration omitted). A plaintiff “must identify a waiver of sovereign immunity in order to proceed against the United States. If he cannot identify a waiver, the claim must be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.” Reetz v. U.S., 224 F.3d 794, 795 (6th Cir. 2000). Mr. Poole has not identified any grounds supporting a waiver of the Department’s immunity from this lawsuit. 1 The portion of his Complaint (completed on a checklist form intended to assist pro se litigants) pertaining to subject matter jurisdiction was left blank. He did not respond to the Department’s Motion to Dismiss. 2 In short, Mr. Poole has failed to satisfy his burden of proving jurisdiction. 1 On its own review, the Court sees nothing to suggest that the Department has waived sovereign immunity as against Mr. Poole’s claims. 2 On May 19, 2021, this Court sua sponte issued an Order notifying Mr. Poole that he failed to timely submit a response to the Department’s Motion. The Order extended the deadline for Mr. Poole to file a response, if he could demonstrate good 3 Accordingly, the Department’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE this case from the docket of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Sarah D. Morrison SARAH D. MORRISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cause for his failure to do so timely. Mr. Poole did not respond in any way to the Court’s May 19, 2021 Order. 4

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.