Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv—00O42-KAJ Document 7 Filed 03/03/2006 Paget of3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SHERRY E. WASHINGTON, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. N0. 06-42-I THE UNITED STATES OF g
AMERICA, its officials or )
agencies, )
Defendant. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Sherry E. Washington brings this action against the United States of America, its
officials or agencies. (D.l. 3.) She appears pro se and on February 2, 2006, was
granted in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 6.) I now proceed
to review and screen the complaint and amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915.
I. THE COMPLAINT
Washington brings suit against the United States of America, its officials or
agencies. Her complaint is basically unintelligible, but exhibits submitted by
Washington indicate that she was assaulted. She alleges that the police were called,
and then she was taken by ambulance for medical care. She later filed a claim with the
Delaware Violent Crime Compensation Board, and received an award in the amount of
$194.00. Washington claims discrimination on the basis of her religious and national
origin. It is not at all clear, but apparently Washington seeks some type of injunctive
relief.

Case 1:06-cv—OOO42-KAJ Document 7 Filed 03/03/2006 Page 2 of 3
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a Iitigant proceeds in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides for
dismissal under certain circumstances. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides that the Court
may dismiss a complaint, at any time, if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
The Court must "accept as true factual allegations inthe complaint and all
reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom." Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 83, 65
(3d Cir. 1996)(citing Holder v. City ofAiientown, 987 F.2d 188, 194 (3d Cir. 1993)).
Additionally, pro se complaints are held to "Iess stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by |awyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim
when "it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim which would entitle him to re|ief."' Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521
(1972)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45—46 (1957)). inasmuch as plaintiff
proceeds pro se, I will construe the complaint liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972).
III. ANALYSIS
Washington brings this suit against the United States of America, its officials or
agencies. Initially, it must be noted that the complaint contains absolutely no
allegations against the United States. l\/lore important, however, is that the United
States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued. See United
2

Case 1:06-cv—O0O42-KAJ Document 7 Filed 03/03/2006 Page 3 of 3
States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). A waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be
implied but must be unequivocally expressed. ld. (citing United States v. King, 395 U.S.
1, 4 (1969)). Moreover, "[i]t is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without
its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite forjurisdiction." United
States v. Mitchell (ll), 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). I
There is nothing to suggest that the United States has waived its sovereign
immunity. Accordingly, I am dismissing without prejudice the complaint brought
against the United States of America, its officials or agencies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), as it is immune from suit.
IV. CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
1. Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2. Plaintiff is given leave to amend the complaint. The amended complaint
shall be filed within thirty days from the date ofthis order. lf an amended complaint is
not filed within the time allowed, the case will be closed.

NIT DSTATES DISTRI JUDGE
March 3, 2006 S
Wilmington, Delaware
3