Kurtz v. United States
798 F. Supp. 2d 285
D.D.C.2011Background
- Pro se plaintiff James D. Lammers Kurtz sues the United States alleging misconduct by federal judges and that U.S. holds his property in Wisconsin.
- United States moves to dismiss; Kurtz moves to amend his complaint.
- Court must determine if it has jurisdiction given sovereign immunity and potential waivers.
- Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive and declaratory relief against the United States.
- Court dismisses claims against the United States for lack of waiver and lack of private right of action; unnamed defendants are not timely served.
- Motion to amend deemed futile; unnamed defendants' claims dismissed for lack of service and inadequacy of allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the court have subject-matter jurisdiction over the United States claims? | Kurtz asserts jurisdiction under APA § 702 waiver. | U.S. immunity remains; § 702 does not waive for judicial defendants. | No jurisdiction; sovereign immunity bars claims against U.S. |
| Does the APA § 702 waiver apply to claims against the United States for actions by federal judges? | APA § 702 allows suit against agency/officer acting in official capacity. | Courts are not an agency under § 701(b)(1)(B); no waiver for claims against judges. | Waiver does not apply to claims against federal judges; dismissal proper. |
| Is there a private right of action for Kurtz's property-held claim under criminal statutes? | Statutes allegedly violate property rights; seeks civil remedy. | Criminal statutes cited do not create private rights of action. | No private right of action; claim dismissed. |
| Should the proposed amendments adding the Attorney General and Wisconsin clerks be allowed? | Add new defendants to pursue relief. | Amendment futile due to lack of personal jurisdiction and pleaded plausibility. | Amendment denied as futile. |
| Should unnamed defendants (John Doe entities) be dismissed for lack of service/adequate allegations? | Unnamed defendants exist; discovery may identify them. | No good cause shown; allegations insufficient to identify wrongdoing; discovery moot because defendants dismissed. | Unnamed defendants dismissed for failure to serve and insufficient allegations. |
Key Cases Cited
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity unless explicitly waived)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (consent to sue defined by waiver; immunity cannot be assumed)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996) (strict construction of waivers in the sovereign's favor)
- Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (1981) (conditions on government consent must be observed)
- Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (unconstitutional actions by officials may not bind the sovereign when sue directly the United States)
- Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949) (unconstitutional statutory action by officers; sovereign not liable when directly challenged)