TUCKER v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 3/14/2018. (rss, n.m )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

(Doc. No. 2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
___________________________________
:
KAREN TUCKER,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
Civil No. 17-13738 (RBK/AMD)
:
v.
:
OPINION
:
ERIC HARGAN,
:
Acting Secretary of Health and Human
:
Services
:
:
Defendant.
:
___________________________________ :
KUGLER, United States District Judge:
Karen Tucker (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se with a complaint against the United
States Department of Health and Human Services (“Defendant” or “HHS”). The Court must now
review the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to determine whether it should be
dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from suit. For the reasons
set forth below, the Complaint shall be dismissed.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff is a New Jersey resident.1 (Compl. at 3) Plaintiff filed suit on December 28,
2017. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff’s complaint recites pages of incoherent legalese (it is 120 pages
long), but the gist of it—as it appears to this Court—is essentially a demand for $1,652,000 from

1

Plaintiff resides at One Erynwood Avenue, Marlton, New Jersey. (Compl. at 3).
1

the United States Government for successfully prosecuting Plaintiff for Medicare fraud.2
(See Compl.).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
District courts must review complaints in civil actions in which a litigant is proceeding in
forma pauperis and must sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
Plaintiff invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and original
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
B. Sovereign Immunity
The federal government has sovereign immunity unless it waives its immunity or
consents to suit. “It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless
it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plan language of the
statute authorizing it.” Price v. United States, 174 U.S. 373, 375-76 (1899).
Plaintiff’s suit is just the sort barred by sovereign immunity. While in her complaint
Plaintiff cites pages of statutes, judicial opinions, and the United States Constitution itself, she
offers nothing that resembles a coherent assertion of how or why she is able to bring suit against
the federal government. (See Compl.). As such, her case must be barred from proceeding because
it seeks “monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.

2

Parsing out the meat of the complaint here would be an academic exercise and is unnecessary
for this Court’s decision today.
2

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. An appropriate order
follows.

Dated: 03/14/2018

s/ Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United State District Judge

3