Jones v. Markell

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 23, 2017
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2017-0326
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Matthew Jones, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case: 1117-cv-00326 ) Assigned To : Unassigned V_ ) ASSigtl. Dafe 3 2/23/2017 § Descrlption: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F-DECK) Governor Jack l\/Iarkell, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has submitted a Complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis The Court will grant the application and will dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal of an action “at any time” the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).

Plaintiff is a resident of Greenwood, Delaware. He sues Delaware’s former Governor Jack Markell but for what acts is unclear from the rambling allegations comprising the prolix complaint Plaintiff seeks $l trillion.

Plaintiff has alleged no facts establishing how Markell may be held liable in his personal capacity, and an official-capacity lawsuit is “in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity [State of Delaware].” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985). The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution immunizes the State from suit in federal

court, unless immunity is wai\/ed.l And although plaintiff has not specified a federal cause of

l The amendment provides in pertinent part: “[t]he judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State." U.S. Const. amend. Xl. lt is long established

l

action in the complaint, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that 42 U.S.C. § l983-the most likely authority_does not waive a state’s immunity from suit. See Graham, 473 U.S. at 169-70 (concluding that “an official-capacity action for damages could not have been maintained against [Kentucky] Commissioner Brandenburgh in federal court”). Hence this case will be dismissed

A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opini

Date: February[ l ,20l7

United States ljistrict Judge

that this amendment applies equally to suits brought by citizens against their own states. See Edelman v. Jora’an, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. l, 13-15 (1890).

!\)