David Jacob Deile v. United States; U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C., c/o Civil Process Clerk; Pam Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Civil Process Clerk, United States Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota; Scott Bessent, U.S. Treasury Secretary; Brandon Beach, U.S. Treasurer

• Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
• Decided: January 12, 2026
• Docket: 0:25-cv-01019
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

DAVID JACOB DEILE, Case No. 25-CV-1019 (PJS/LIB) Plaintiff,

V. ORDER UNITED STATES; U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR D.C., c/o Civil Process Clerk; PAM BONDI, U.S. Attorney General; CIVIL PROCESS CLERK, United States Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota; SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. Treasury Secretary; BRANDON BEACH, U.S. Treasurer, Defendants.

Plaintiff David Deile brings this action claiming that certain financial accounts

were created using personal information from his deceased parents’ vital records. Deile seeks to have those accounts liquidated and distributed to “rightful beneficiaries.” ECF No. 42 at 7. This matter is before the Court on defendants’’ motion to dismiss Deile’s amended complaint [ECF No. 42]. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6),

‘Defendants’ brief in support of their motion to dismiss notes that, “[t]hrough the meet and confer process, the undersigned understands that Mr. Deile intends to add Secretary Bessent and Treasurer Beach as defendants, but that the U.S. Attorney’s Office Civil Process Clerk and Attorney General Bondi are listed so as to convey proper service on the United States and federal employees named.” ECF No. 45 at 2. Based on this statement, the Court understands the motion to seek dismissal on behalf of all defendants identified in the caption of this order.

defendants make a factual attack on jurisdiction and argue that the amended complaint fails to state a claim. Defendants filed their motion on September 5, 2025. ECF No. 44.’ Deile’s

response was therefore due on September 26, 2025. D. Minn. L.R. 7.1(c)(2). To date, Deile has not responded to the motion to dismiss. Having reviewed the amended complaint, the Court agrees that Deile has not identified any basis for waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States, much less offered evidence that could establish a factual basis for such a waiver. See United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983) (“It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.”); Buford v. Runyon, 160 F.3d 1199, 1203 (8th Cir. 1998) (sovereign immunity applies to the United States, its agencies, and its officials sued in their official capacities); Moss v. United States, 895 F.3d 1091, 1097 (8th Cir. 2018) (to counter a factual attack on jurisdiction, “the party invoking federal jurisdiction must prove jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of the evidence”). To the extent that Deile intends to bring individual-capacity claims against the individual defendants, he has failed to allege any action or omission by any of them and

*The Court initially struck defendants’ motion for failure to contact the Court for a hearing date as required by the local rules. ECF No. 50. Later that day, however, the Court reinstated the motion after defendants secured a hearing date. Id. -2-

has therefore failed to state a claim. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (a plaintiff must allege enough facts to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level’). The Court therefore grants defendants’ motion to dismiss. ORDER Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 44] is GRANTED and the amended complaint [ECF No. 42] is DISMISSED as follows:

a. All claims against defendant United States and any official-capacity claims against the individual defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. b. Any individual-capacity claims against the individual defendants

are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. 2. The hearing scheduled for January 21, 2026, is CANCELED. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: January 12, 2026 /s/ Patrick J. Schiltz Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge United States District Court

-3-