Yearman v. United States Board on Geographic Names, 1:15-cv-07985

Background

Plaintiff Keith Yearman, a geography professor and gubernatorial appointee to the Illinois Geographic Information Council, sued the U.S. Board on Geographic Names and the Illinois State Board on Geographic Names seeking, in substance, abolition of the Illinois Board.
Yearman disclaimed any financial motive and filed pro se. He challenged whether the Illinois Board is a federal or state entity.
The complaint named the U.S. Board (a statutory body created by 43 U.S.C. § 364 et seq.) and the Illinois Board; the Department of the Interior’s OIG indicated the Illinois Board is not federal.
The district court screened the complaint for federal subject-matter jurisdiction and considered possible bases: waiver of sovereign immunity via a sue-and-be-sued clause, review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
The court found no sue-and-be-sued clause in the statute creating the U.S. Board, the Board’s role is recommendatory (so not an ‘‘agency’’ for APA purposes), and Yearman failed to plead any nondiscretionary duty for mandamus relief.
Because no federal jurisdictional basis existed and amendment could not cure the defects, the court dismissed the complaint sua sponte and denied Yearman’s IFP application as moot.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court has federal subject-matter jurisdiction over claims involving the Illinois Board	Yearman alleged uncertainty whether the Illinois Board is federal and sought federal relief aimed at abolishing the Illinois Board	Defendants (and OIG) treat the Illinois Board as a state entity; any claim against it would require supplemental jurisdiction	No federal subject-matter jurisdiction; claims against Illinois Board would be pendent and unavailable if federal claims fail
Whether the U.S. Board can be sued for money or injunctive relief (sovereign immunity)	Yearman sued the U.S. Board without relying on a specific waiver	The statute creating the U.S. Board contains no sue-and-be-sued clause; sovereign immunity bars suit	No waiver via a sue-and-be-sued clause; sovereign immunity bars Yearman’s claims against the U.S. Board
Whether the APA provides a waiver of sovereign immunity or an avenue for review	Yearman sought relief under the APA or similar review mechanisms	The U.S. Board’s functions are recommendatory; final authority rests with the Secretary, so the Board is not an ‘‘agency’’ for APA review; APA is not an independent jurisdictional grant	APA does not authorize review here and does not provide jurisdiction or a private right of action
Whether mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 can supply jurisdiction	Yearman sought mandamus to compel action concerning geographic names	No nondiscretionary duty to plaintiff was alleged; mandamus requires a clear nondiscretionary duty to plaintiff	Mandamus relief is unavailable because Yearman failed to plead a nondiscretionary duty owed to him

Key Cases Cited

Wis. Knife Works v. Nat'l Metal Crafters, 781 F.2d 1280 (7th Cir. 1986) (courts must first assess federal jurisdiction when a complaint is filed)
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sue-and-be-sued clauses and waiver of sovereign immunity principles)
Western Sec. Co. v. Derwinsky, 937 F.2d 1276 (7th Cir. 1991) (distinction between waiver of immunity and grant of jurisdiction)
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977) (APA is not an independent source of jurisdiction)
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (federal courts will not create private rights of action absent congressional authorization)
Wernsing v. Thompson, 423 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2005) (district court may dismiss sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction)