Scott, II v. Unknown

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided March 24, 2025·No. Civil Action No. 2024-3646·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

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

Scott, II v. Unknown, (D.D.C. 2025).

Scott, II v. Unknown (Scott, II v. Unknown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Mitchell
445 U.S. 535 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America
511 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Lane v. Pena
518 U.S. 187 (Supreme Court, 1996)
Tooley v. Napolitano
556 F.3d 836 (D.C. Circuit, 2009)
Tony Best v. Sharon Pratt Kelly, Mayor
39 F.3d 328 (D.C. Circuit, 1994)