Opinion
Case: 1:16-cv-00522
03-15-2016
Frederick Brown, Plaintiff, v. Anne Jacobosky et al., Defendants.
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 3/18/2016
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F-Deck)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff's application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).
Plaintiff is a resident of Garland, Texas. He sues an Assistant Regional Commissioner of the Social Security Administration and other federal employees under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq, "and other causes of action." Compl. Caption. Plaintiff demands money damages exceeding $175 million. See Compl. at 19.
Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the federal government is subject to suit only upon consent, which must be clear and unequivocal. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980) (citation omitted). "Congress [has] not waive[d] the United States' sovereign immunity for suits for treble damages under the RICO Act," Abou-Hussein v. Mabus, 953 F. Supp. 2d 251, 263 (D.D.C. 2013), citing Norris v. Dep't of Defense, No. 96-5326, 1997 WL 362495, at *1 (D.C. Cir. May 5, 1997), and "sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature." FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994).
Plaintiff also cites 31 U.S.C. § 3716, which sets out the procedures for the United States to collect a debt by administrative offset. Plaintiff has not pointed to any statutory language waiving the United States' immunity. In contrast, § 3716 (c)(2) specifically exempts from liability "the disbursing official" and "the payment certifying agency . . . (A) for the amount of the administrative offset on the basis that the underlying obligation, represented by the payment before administrative offset was taken, was not satisfied; or (B) for failure to provide timely notice[.]" Finally, plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1491, governing claims against the United States, but his claim exceeds $10,000 and, thus, lies exclusively with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2).
For the foregoing reasons this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/_________
United States District Judge DATE: March 15, 2016