GRANT II v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

William Lee GRANT, II, Appellant v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY and United States Department of Transportation, Appellees

No. 18-5270

Decided: February 08, 2019

BEFORE: Henderson and Rogers, Circuit Judges; Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge William Lee Grant, II, Springfield, IL, pro se. R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Appellees

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's August 20, 2018 order be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appellant's complaint and case against the United States Department of Transportation and the United States Department of the Treasury, and appellant has not identified any valid basis for jurisdiction. See United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 103 S.Ct. 2961, 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983) (“It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.”). The district court also properly determined that appellant failed to sufficiently plead any allegations against those agencies. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (requiring “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction” and “the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam