Harper v. State of Texas

District of Columbia

Harper v. State of Texas

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJune 8, 2015

DocketCivil Action No. 2015-0341

StatusPublished

This text of Harper v. State of Texas (Harper v. State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harper v. State of Texas, (D.D.C. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DARRELL J. HARPER, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 15-341 (UNA) STATE OF TEXAS, .

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The plaintiff purports to bring this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against the State of Texas. Compl. at 1. He claims that the State of Texas is so “tainted with Ku Klux Klan” that his conviction and sentence in the Texas courts are unconstitutional. Id. at 2. He demands damages of $100,000,000.00. Id.

The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution immunizes a state from suit in federal court, unless immunity is waived. See College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 675—76 (1999); Keenan v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth, 643 F. Supp. 324, 327—28 (D.D.C. 1986) (citing cases). A waiver is found “only where stated ‘by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the test as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.’ ” Morris v. Washington Metro. Area T ransitAuth., 781 F.2d 218, 221 (DC. Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted). And because

Bivens creates a cause of action against federal officials shown to have violated an individual's

constitutional rights while acting under color of federal authority, it does not apply to state action. For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” it determines

that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting). An Order is issued separately.

)l DATE: Q/S/ﬂa’ g 22;) g g; - United States istrict Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DARRELL J. HARPER, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 15-341 (UNA) STATE OF TEXAS, .

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The plaintiff purports to bring this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against the State of Texas. Compl. at 1. He claims that the State of Texas is so “tainted with Ku Klux Klan” that his conviction and sentence in the Texas courts are unconstitutional. Id. at 2. He demands damages of $100,000,000.00. Id.

The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution immunizes a state from suit in federal court, unless immunity is waived. See College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 675—76 (1999); Keenan v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth, 643 F. Supp. 324, 327—28 (D.D.C. 1986) (citing cases). A waiver is found “only where stated ‘by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the test as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.’ ” Morris v. Washington Metro. Area T ransitAuth., 781 F.2d 218, 221 (DC. Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted). And because

Bivens creates a cause of action against federal officials shown to have violated an individual's

constitutional rights while acting under color of federal authority, it does not apply to state action. For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” it determines

that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting). An Order is issued separately.

)l DATE: Q/S/ﬂa’ g 22;) g g; - United States istrict Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Harper v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-state-of-texas-dcd-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack