COULTER v. US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOHN COULTER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-193-AW-MAF

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,

Defendant.

_______________________________/ ORDER OF DISMISSAL John Coulter filed a Bivens action against the United States Customs and Border Protection. According to the complaint, Customs wrongfully took Mr. Coulter’s boat. Customs moved to dismiss, arguing that as a government agency, it is not subject to any Bivens suit. Thus, it argues, the court should dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, which likewise concluded the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 21. Mr. Coulter has not filed any objection. As the magistrate judge correctly noted, a Bivens claim may not be brought against federal agencies. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994); McCollum v. Bolger, 794 F.2d 602, 608 (11th Cir. 1986). And as a federal agency, the defendant has sovereign immunity. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475 (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”). Thus, because “[s]overeign immunity is jurisdictional in nature,” id., the case must be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. McCollum, 794 F.2d at 607-08 (affirming dismissal of “Bivens-type claim [against USPS] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction”); Hallett v. Ohio, 711 F. App’x 949, 951 (11th Cir. 2017) (“The district

court did not err in dismissing Hallett’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although Hallett alleged that jurisdiction was proper under Bivens, he failed to name any federal official as a defendant.”); Nalls v. Coleman Low Fed. Inst., 307 F. App’x 296, 298 (11th Cir. 2009) (“As an initial matter, the district court

lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Nalls’s claims against the Bureau of Prisons because Bivens does not extend to federal agencies.”). It is now ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) is adopted and incorporated into this order. 2. The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED. 3. The clerk will enter a judgment that says “This case is dismissed for

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” 4. The clerk will close the file. SO ORDERED on March 8, 2021.

s/ Allen Winsor United States District Judge