Opinion
Case No. 8:00-CV-2576-T-27MAP
May 29, 2001
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE came on to be considered on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 8). The Court having reviewed said motion and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, as follows:
Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on the grounds that Plaintiff has not and cannot state a claim against Defendant under § 713.21, Fla. Stat. as the Florida statute does not operate to discharge a federal lien and Defendant is immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendant's motion.
A court should not grant a motion to dismiss "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). The Court will accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and will view them in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). The threshold is "exceedingly low" for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Ancata v. Prison Health Services. Inc., 769 F.2d 700, 703 (11th Cir. 1985). Regardless of the alleged facts, however, a court may dismiss a complaint on a dispositive issue of law. See Marshall County Bd. of Educ. v Marshall County Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 1993).
The Court finds that the Defendant's arguments concerning sovereign immunity are dispositive. The United States may not be sued without its consent. Raulerson v. United States, 786 F.2d 1090, 1091 (11th Cir. 1986). Any waiver of the United States' sovereign immunity must be explicit and will be strictly construed. Id. Thus, Defendant is immune from suit unless it has expressly waived sovereign immunity and consented to be sued for a claim under § 713.21, Fla. Stat. No such waiver exists. See Slayback v. O'Neal, 2001 WL 361597 (M.D. Fla. 2001). As such, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and this action should be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 8) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED.
2. The Clerk is directed to deny all pending motions as moot and close this case.