COULTER
v.
US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Bivens action cannot be brought against a federal agency due to sovereign immunity, requiring dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed a Bivens action against U.S. Customs and Border Protection, alleging the agency wrongfully took his boat. The agency moved to dismiss,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bivens Action cases and more on FLexlaw
John Coulter filed a Bivens action against the United States Customs and Border Protection. According to the complaint, Customs wrongfully took Mr. Coulter’s boat. Customs moved to dismiss, arguing that as a government agency, it is not subject to any Bivens suit. Thus, it argues, the court should dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, which likewise concluded the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 21. Mr. Coulter has not filed any objection. As the magistrate judge correctly noted, a Bivens claim may not be brought against federal agencies. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994); McCollum v. Bolger, 794 F. 2d 602, 608 (11th Cir. 1986). And as a federal agency, the defendant has sovereign immunity. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475 (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”). Thus, because “[s]overeign immunity is jurisdictional in nature,” id., the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. McCollum, 794 F. 2d at 607-08 (affirming dismissal of “Bivens-type claim [against USPS] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction”); Hallett v. Ohio, 711 F. App’x 949, 951 (11th Cir. 2017) (“The district court did not err in dismissing Hallett’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although Hallett alleged that jurisdiction was proper under Bivens, he failed to name any federal official as a defendant.”); Nalls v. Coleman Low Fed. Inst., 307 F. App’x 296, 298 (11th Cir. 2009) (“As an initial matter, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Nalls’s claims against the Bureau of Prisons because Bivens does not extend to federal agencies.”). It is now ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) is adopted and incorporated into this order. 2. The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED. 3. The clerk will enter a judgment that says “This case is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
4. The clerk will close the file.
SO ORDERED on March 8, 2021.
s/ Allen Winsor United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1994)
- McCOLLUM v. Bolger, 794 F.2d 602 (11th Cir. 1986)