FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AUG 10 2021
SHAUN RUSHING, ) Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Columbia
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 21-2098 (UNA)
)
FEDERAL BUREAU )
OF INVESTIGATION, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and his Complaint against the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The application will be granted, and this case will be dismissed for want of
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 sues the FBI based on his alleged services as an informant. He seeks “$110
Trillon dollars.” Compl. at 1. Sovereign immunity bars a suit against the United States and its
agencies except upon consent, which must be clear and unequivocal. United States v. Mitchell,
445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980) (citation omitted). A waiver of sovereign immunity “must be
unequivocally expressed in statutory text, and [it cannot] be implied.” Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S.
187, 192 (1996) (citations omitted). The Tucker Act gives the United States Court of
Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction
to render judgment upon any claim [exceeding $10,000] against the
United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of
Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any
express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated
or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.
1
Kidwell v. Dep't of Army, Bd. for Correction of Mil. Recs., 56 F.3d 279, 283 (D.C. Cir. 1995)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1491). Plaintiff’s terse complaint is grounded upon an alleged contractual
relationship. This and the amount sought deprive this Court of jurisdiction. A separate order of
dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
_________/s/_______________
EMMET G. SULLIVAN
United States District Judge
Date: August 10, 2021
2