Penk v. Governor of the State of Colorado

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedMarch 30, 2020
DocketCivil Action No. 2020-0378
StatusPublished

This text of Penk v. Governor of the State of Colorado (Penk v. Governor of the State of Colorado) 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
Penk v. Governor of the State of Colorado, (D.D.C. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PAGE DAVID PENK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 20-cv-378 (UNA) ) ) GOVERNOR OF COLORADO et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis and

an “Emergency Complaint of Civil Rights Violation Under Color of Authority 42 U.S.C. § 1983,”

ECF No. 1. 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 Trinidad, Colorado. He purports to sue the Governor of

Colorado and the Director of a Colorado agency. See Compl. Caption. States and their officers

are generally immune from suit in federal court, unless immunity is waived. 1 Plaintiff’s wide-

ranging allegations do not establish any such waiver of immunity. See Khadr v. United States,

529 F.3d 1112, 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he party claiming subject matter jurisdiction . . . has

the burden to demonstrate that it exists.”) (citation omitted)). And the D.C. Circuit “has held that

1 The Eleventh 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. XI. It is long established that this immunity applies equally to suits brought by citizens against their own states. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 13-15 (1890).

1 section 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity[.]” Ali v. District of Columbia, 278

F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate

Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

2020.03.30 14:41:52 -04'00' _____________________________ Date: March 30, 2020 TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J.

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

Related

Hans v. Louisiana
134 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1890)
Edelman v. Jordan
415 U.S. 651 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Ali v. District of Columbia
278 F.3d 1 (D.C. Circuit, 2002)
Khadr v. United States
529 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Penk v. Governor of the State of Colorado, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penk-v-governor-of-the-state-of-colorado-dcd-2020.