Lowe v. United States

Filing 4

ORDERED that plaintiff's claims be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B) for lack of jurisdiction. A separate judgment will be entered. Signed by Judge Ira De Ment on 5/23/07. (sl, )

Lowe v. United States

Doc. 4

Case 2:07-cv-00450-ID-SRW

Document 4

Filed 05/23/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION P H ILL IP I S. LOWE, P l a i n t if f , v. U N IT E D STATES, D e fe n d a n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER T h is cause is before the court on the complaint filed by Phillipi S. Lowe on May 2 1 , 2007. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal is appropriate p rio r to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1 P la in tif f, proceeding pro se, brings this action against the United States. He a llege s that various "U.S. Judges, Clerks, and other governmental Employees operating in th e scope of their employment" violated his rights under First, Fifth, Fourth, and F o u rtee n th Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Compl. at 1.) Plaintiff in c lu d e s no specific factual allegations, but asserts in conclusory terms that federal judges a n d employees (apparently in the Middle and Southern Districts of Alabama, the N o rth e rn District of Florida, and the District of Columbia) somehow involved plaintiff in a race-based attack against a civil rights law firm, then deprived plaintiff of his

C IV IL ACTION NO. 2:07cv450-ID (W O )

The statute provides, in pertinent part: "[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any tim e if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal­ (i) is frivolous or malicious, ( ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:07-cv-00450-ID-SRW

Document 4

Filed 05/23/2007

Page 2 of 2

c o n s titu t io n a l rights in plaintiff's pro se cases against "white defendants." 2 (Id. at 1-2.) P la in t if f demands thirteen million dollars in damages from the United States. P la in tiff's constitutional tort claims against the United States are barred by so vere ign immunity, and, thus, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff's claims. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994) (declining to recognize a direct action fo r damages against federal agencies for alleged constitutional violations); U.S v. Testan, 4 2 4 U.S. 392, 400 (1976) ("In a suit against the United States, there cannot be a right to m o n ey damages without a waiver of sovereign immunity[.]"). A c co rd in gly , it is CONSIDERED and ORDERED that plaintiff's claims be and th e same are hereby DISMISSED prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for lack of jurisdiction. A separate judgment will be entered. D o n e this 23 r d day of May, 2007.

/s/ Ira DeMent SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The undersigned has not previously presided over any of plaintiff's cases filed in th is district. 2

2