Emiabata v. Fitzgerald

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 30, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-1411
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PHILIP EMIABATA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-01411 (UNA) ) ) JOHN P. FITZGERALD, III et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se complaint and

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and

dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction.

“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). The

United States, U.S. agencies, and federal officials and employees are immune from suit save “clear

congressional consent[.]” United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980); see Albrecht v.

Comm. on Employee Benefits of Fed. Reserve Employee Benefits Sys., 357 F.3d 62, 67 (D.C. Cir.

2004) (federal agencies and instrumentalities performing federal functions possess sovereign

immunity) (cleaned up); Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89, 103 (D.C. Cir. 1984)

(confirming immunity for government employees acting in their official capacity). A waiver of

immunity “must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text, and [it cannot] be implied.” Lane v.

Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (cleaned up). 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). Plaintiff brings this action against two Acting United States Trustees, John P. Fitzgerald

III and Gerard R. Vetter, in their official and personal capacities. Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1. The

prolix pleading is difficult to follow but arises from Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings,

id. at 3-4, to which he “is no stranger.” Emiabata v. Vetter, No. 23-cv-02008 (CRC), 2024 WL

378039, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 1, 2024) (noting in bankruptcy appeal “evidence that Mr. Emiabata

and his wife have collectively filed over ten cases in the past ten years”); see also In re Emiabata,

642 B.R. 481, 483 (Bankr. D. Conn. July 22, 2022) (finding “cause to sua sponte dismiss this case

as a misuse - and abuse - of the bankruptcy system” based on Plaintiff’s “approximately thirteen

(13) bankruptcy cases in seven (7) Districts -- all of which were dismissed”).

In this case based presumably on the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia’s

dismissal of Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 petition, Plaintiff alleges that U.S. Trustees Fitzgerald and

Vetter “are individually responsible for failures to properly apply/administer General Provisions”

of the Bankruptcy Code “to investigate and to prosecute any bankruptcy cases [sic] abusers, under

their jurisdiction, which [is] Region 4.” Compl. at 6. He seeks equitable relief and an unspecified

amount of damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403

U.S. 388 (1971). See Compl. at 41-42; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009) (Bivens

“recognized for the first time an implied private action for damages against federal officers alleged

to have violated a citizen’s constitutional rights.”).

The “U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the Office of the U.S. Trustee are instrumentalities of the

United States” that “are entitled to sovereign immunity.” Surani v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, No.

13-cv-931, 2013 WL 3279265, at *1 (D.D.C. June 28, 2013) (citing Balser v. Dep’t of Justice,

Office of the U.S. Trustee, 327 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003); Taylor v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court,

No. C.A. 3:03–4117–2, 2004 WL 3217865, *1 (D.S.C. Aug.26, 2004)). In addition, bankruptcy

2 trustees, like court officers generally, enjoy absolute immunity from personal-capacity lawsuits

premised, as here, on decisions rendered within the scope of their charge to safeguard “the assets

of the bankruptcy estate under court supervision.” Gross v. Rell, 695 F.3d 211, 216 (2nd Cir. 2012)

(collecting cases).

To the extent Plaintiff seeks review of the D.C. Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal order, which

also barred him “from initiating any bankruptcy case in any federal district for the next four years,”

Emiabata, 2024 WL 378039, at *1, see Compl. at 9-11, 21-22, 39-42, his recourse lies in the

pending bankruptcy appeal, No. 23-cv-02008 (CRC). See Emiabata at *2 (reasoning that a stay

of order transferring Plaintiff’s creditor suit to the Western District of Texas “would only further

delay the Court’s review” of his claims of “ ‘violation of procedural fair due process,’ ‘fraud upon

the court,’ and ‘selective prosecution’ in the Chapter 13 case”). Consequently, this case will be

dismissed by separate order.

_________/s/__________ AMIT P. MEHTA Date: May 30, 2024 United States District Judge