Scott, II v. Unknown

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: March 24, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-3646
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GENE EDWARD SCOTT, II, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-3646 (UNA) ) ) KAMALA HARRIS et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action against former Vice President Kamala Harris

and an “unknown” defendant in their official capacities, Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2, and seeks leave

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The Court grants the IFP motion and dismisses the case for

want of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff concludes that he has “the right[s] to legal employment,” assembly, and equal

protection. Compl. at 4. In lieu of factual allegations, Plaintiff refers to “Exhibit 1” of the

complaint, id., which is equally unilluminating. As relief, Plaintiff seeks financing “for a dry

cleaning” business in “zip code 72069.” Id.

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” possessing “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, including a U.S. official sued in her official capacity, is immune from suit save

“clear congressional consent,” United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980), which “must

be unequivocally expressed in statutory text.” Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (cleaned up). A party seeking relief in the district court must plead facts that bring the suit within the court’s

jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), or suffer dismissal of the case, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Plaintiff has pleaded nothing to overcome sovereign immunity. Further, a “complaint may

be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when,” as here, it is ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no

federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir.

2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). Consequently, this case will be

dismissed by separate order.

_________/s/______________ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER Date: March 24, 2025 United States District Judge