Satterwhite v. United States Department of Justice

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 22, 2023
• Docket: 5:23-cv-05953
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 DACOREY SATTERWHITE, Case No. 23-cv-05953-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS 12 TO THE COURT’S v. JURISDICTION 13 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF Re: ECF 1 14 JUSTICE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff DaCorey Satterwhite filed a complaint against Defendant United States 18 Department of Justice, alleging multiple violations of his civil rights. ECF 1. Plaintiff 19 alleges these violations stem from Defendant failing to investigate and protect against 20 microchip implants in his body. Id. at p. 4. Upon review of the complaint, however, the 21 Court raises a major issue that Plaintiff must address in writing before proceeding with the 22 case. 23 Defendant, as a facet of the federal government, is typically shielded from lawsuits 24 under sovereign immunity. This means that the federal government “may not be sued 25 without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.” 26 United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). “[W]aivers must be ‘unequivocally 27 expressed in the statutory text’ and ‘are to be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in 1 || 396169, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2017) (quoting Dep’t of the Army vy. Blue Fox, 525 U.S. 2 || 255, 261 (1999)). The party seeking waiver bears the burden of meeting this “high 3 || standard.” Jd. (quoting Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servs., 811 F.3d 1086, 4 || 1101 (9th Cir. 2016)). 5 Here, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts supporting a plausible inference that 6 || Defendant waived sovereign immunity with regard to his claims. Accordingly, the Court 7 || ORDERS Plaintiff to provide evidence of Defendant’s unequivocal waiver in his written 8 || response. Plaintiff must file his written response by December 22, 2023. Failure to 9 || comply with the Court’s order may result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s case. See Bolton v. 10 || City of Berkeley, No. 19-cv-05212-WHO, 2020 WL 3892868, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 11 |} 2020). 12 Lastly, the Court refers Plaintiff to the Federal Pro Se Program at the San Jose 13 || Courthouse provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in C 14 || federal civil cases. The Federal Pro Se Program is available by phone appointment at 3 15 |} (408) 297-1480. There are also online resources available on the Court’s webpage. The 16 |} Pro Se Handbook, available at: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/, has a 5 17 || downloadable version of the Court’s publication: Representing Yourself in Federal Court: 5 18 || A Handbook for Pro Se Litigants. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: November 22, 2023 h-_=——— _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28