64 F. Supp. 3d 206
D.D.C.2014Background
- Keenan K. Cofield (a Maryland state prisoner) sued the United States, federal agencies, Congress, President Obama, ICANN, and ICANN’s president in D.C. Superior Court alleging FOIA denials and discriminatory, unlawful government-contractor arrangements favoring ICANN; he sought large monetary damages and injunctive/declaratory relief.
- The U.S. House removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442, 1446; other Federal Defendants consented to removal. The House later was voluntarily dismissed from the case.
- Federal Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (or for summary judgment); ICANN and its president moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5).
- The district court found (1) plaintiff’s individual-capacity claims against federal entities and high-level federal officials were legally deficient; (2) sovereign immunity barred monetary damages against the United States and its agencies; and (3) the derivative-jurisdiction doctrine prevented the federal court from exercising jurisdiction over claims removed under § 1442 because the D.C. Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over those federal-law claims before removal.
- As a result, the court granted the Federal Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion, dismissed federal-defendant claims for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded the remaining claims against ICANN and Beckstrom to D.C. Superior Court for resolution (including service issues).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims may proceed against federal officials in their personal capacities | Cofield sued officials individually and sought relief under FOIA, Privacy Act, Civil Rights statutes, All Writs, and Declaratory Judgment Act | Defendants argued these statutes do not create personal-capacity liability for federal officials and plaintiff cites no legal basis | Dismissed: personal-capacity claims against federal entities/officials not cognizable and dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) |
| Whether sovereign immunity permits money damages against the U.S. and its agencies | Cofield sought billions in monetary relief for FOIA denials and constitutional violations | Defendants: sovereign immunity bars such damages; FTCA waiver does not cover FOIA, constitutional claims, and requires administrative exhaustion | Held: sovereign immunity bars monetary claims against the United States and its agencies; FTCA does not waive immunity for these claims |
| Whether federal court has jurisdiction over removed claims under the derivative-jurisdiction doctrine | Cofield removed the case to federal court via § 1442 after filing in Superior Court | Defendants: derivative-jurisdiction doctrine precludes federal jurisdiction because Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over federal claims before removal | Held: Dismissal/remand: federal court lacks jurisdiction under derivative-jurisdiction doctrine; claims against Federal Defendants dismissed and remaining state-court claims remanded |
| Whether equitable relief (FOIA injunctive relief, declaratory relief) may be heard in federal court after removal | Cofield sought injunctions and declaratory relief under federal statutes | Defendants: exclusive federal jurisdiction is required for FOIA, Privacy Act, All Writs, and Declaratory Judgment Act; Superior Court therefore lacked jurisdiction pre-removal | Held: The doctrine bars exercise of federal jurisdiction on removed claims; equitable claims against Federal Defendants dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing and plaintiff’s burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (presumption that cause lies outside federal court unless plaintiff establishes jurisdiction)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (sovereign immunity shields federal government and agencies absent unequivocal waiver)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed)
- Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 258 U.S. 377 (derivative-jurisdiction doctrine for removed cases)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (distinction between official- and personal-capacity suits)
- Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006 (complaint may be dismissed under jurisdictional rules when patently insubstantial)
- Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61 (courts scrutinize Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional allegations more closely)