Stone v. Department of the Treasury
859 F. Supp. 2d 53
D.D.C.2012Background
- Stone, a pro se plaintiff, filed three separate district court complaints against the Department of the Treasury, HUD, and Eric Holder in the District of Columbia.
- All three cases relate to Stone's 2004 Texas conviction and the terms of his sentence, including restitution and forfeiture orders arising from that conviction.
- Stone previously challenged his conviction and sentence via a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the Northern District of Texas, which was denied and affirmed on appeal.
- The Treasury case seeks return of property seized under a judicial forfeiture order; the HUD case seeks return of restitution payments and challenges the MVRA; the Holder case challenges jurisdiction and seeks declaratory relief.
- The court granted the defendants' 12(b)(1) motions, finding sovereign immunity bars the suits and concluding the actions are improper collateral attacks on the Texas judgment, requiring dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity deprives jurisdiction | Stone contends §1331 provides jurisdiction and waives immunity. | Treasury, HUD, and Holder argue sovereign immunity bars suits absent a statutory waiver. | Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity. |
| Whether MVRA/APA claims circumvent immunity | HUD claim alleges MVRA violation and APA review of agency action. | MVRA does not waive sovereign immunity; APA review is unavailable absent final agency action. | No waiver; claims fail for lack of final agency action and no adequate remedy. |
| Whether these suits are improper collateral attacks on the Texas conviction | Suits are not collateral attacks; aim to vindicate rights under various statutes. | Relief would overrule prior Texas judgment; improper collateral attacks. | Actions are improper collateral attacks; remedies lie in §2255 or appellate process. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (sovereign immunity requires consent to sue)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity shields the government absent waiver)
- Transohio Sav. Bank v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision, 967 F.2d 598 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (agency involvement does not defeat sovereign immunity absent waiver)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (APA final-action requirement and jurisdictional limits)
- Walton v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 533 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D.D.C. 2008) (Declaratory Judgment Act does not waive sovereign immunity)