Hobson v. Federal Courthouse

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2 ) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Sr. District Judge John A. Ross on 3/12/25. (JAB)

Case: 4:24-cv-01691-JAR

Doc. #: 6

Filed: 03/12/25

Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 61

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

YULE HOBSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL COURTHOUSE,
Defendant.

No. 4:24-cv-01691-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on review of the file. Self-represented Plaintiff Yule Hobson
is a frequent filer in this Court. In the present action, he appears to sue the federal government for
harassment and the death of his mother. He has neither paid the filing fee nor filed a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss
this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Complaint

Although submitted on the Court's Civil Complaint form, Plaintiff's complaint is
indecipherable. In the complaint's caption, where Plaintiff should have listed defendants' names,
he instead provides a phone number and writes: "All them involved Federal Jail Harassment
Clerk's Office." In the margins surrounding the caption, Plaintiff makes various incoherent
statements, including "O Gods see my mother at they kill her Ms. Eulia Hobson hassment [sic] me
filed case try kill me." On page two, Plaintiff states, among other things: "Federal Courthouse set
Hassment [sic] me? Attach [illegible] Now know, who kill who set the kill my mother[.]"
In the "Statement of Claim" section, Plaintiff reiterates allegations about his mother's death
and references "Federal Rule of Civil [Procedure] 1983," presumably intending to cite 42 U.S.C.

Case: 4:24-cv-01691-JAR

Doc. #: 6

Filed: 03/12/25

Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 62

§ 1983. The remainder of the complaint consists of disjointed marginalia related to harassment,

the death of Plaintiffs mother, and threats against Plaintiff himself. Plaintiff does not assert a basis
for subject matter jurisdiction.
Discussion

Although the complaint is incomprehensible, it is evident that Plaintiff seeks to sue the
federal courts or another subdivision of the federal government. Absent a waiver, sovereign
immunity shields the federal government and its agencies from suit. See, e.g., FD.JC. v. Meyer,
510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (citations omitted). Courts narrowly construe waivers of sovereign
immunity in favor of the sovereign, and the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the waiver.

See Snider v. United States, 468 F.3d 500,509 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187,
192 (1996)); see also VS Ltd. P'ship v. Dep't ofHous. & Urb. Df!V., 235 F.3d 1109, 1112 (8th Cir.
2000). "Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature." Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475. The extstence of
consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206,212 (1983).
There is no indication in the complaint or elsewhere that the federal government has waived
its immunity. Accordingly, the defendant-whether the federal government itself or one if its
subdivisions-is entitled to sovereign immunity. Because sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in
nature, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. See Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475. 1
Conclusion

Under Federal Rule 12(h)(3), the Court must dismiss an action if it determines at any time
that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Because the defendant in this case is entitled to sovereign

1

1

Even if Plaintiff could establish subject matter jurisdiction, his complaint defies the "short and
plain statement" requirement of Federal Rule 8, which is designed to give defendants fair notice
of the claims against them and to ensure that the court has sufficient information to assess the merit
of the case. Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). As explained above, Plaintiffs complaint is incomprehensible.
2

Case: 4:24-cv-01691-JAR

Doc. #: 6

Filed: 03/12/25

Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 63

immunity, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. See Meyer, 510 U.S. at 47 5. Consequently,
the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs complaint under Federal Rule 12(h)(3).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate
Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Application to Proceed Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
Dated this 12th day of March, 2025.

JO~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3