Deile v. United States
David Jacob Deile v. United States; U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C., c/o Civil Process Clerk; Pam Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Civil Process Clerk, United States Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota; Scott Bessent, U.S. Treasury Secretary; Brandon Beach, U.S. Treasurer
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:25-cv-01019
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In David Deile v. United States, Judge Schiltz granted dismissal, separating jurisdictional dismissals without prejudice from claim dismissals with prejudice.
David Jacob Deile’s amended complaint was dismissed: claims against the United States and official-capacity claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, while individual-capacity claims were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
What happened
David Jacob Deile claimed that financial accounts were created using information from his deceased parents’ vital records and asked that the accounts be liquidated and distributed to the rightful beneficiaries. The defendants moved to dismiss his amended complaint, and Deile did not respond.
The court found that Deile had not identified a waiver of the United States’ protection from lawsuits or provided facts establishing such a waiver. The court also found that he did not allege any action or failure to act by the individual defendants.
Judge Patrick J. Schiltz granted the motion to dismiss. Claims against the United States and claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities were dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; any individual-capacity claims were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The scheduled hearing was canceled.
The detailed version
- Deile v. United States · No. 0:25-cv-01019
- Patrick Schiltz
- Jan. 12, 2026
Background
David Jacob Deile alleged that certain financial accounts were created using personal information from his deceased parents’ vital records. He sought to have the accounts liquidated and distributed to “rightful beneficiaries.” The defendants moved to dismiss Deile’s amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Deile did not respond to the motion by the deadline.
Court’s Analysis
The defendants made a factual challenge to jurisdiction. The court held that Deile had not identified any basis for waiving the United States’ sovereign immunity—the rule that the United States cannot be sued without its consent—and had not offered evidence establishing facts that would support such a waiver. The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over claims against the United States and official-capacity claims against the individual defendants.
The court separately addressed any claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities. It found that Deile had not alleged any action or failure to act by any of those defendants. The court concluded that those allegations failed to state a claim for relief.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. All claims against the United States and any official-capacity claims against the individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Any individual-capacity claims against the individual defendants were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court canceled the scheduled January 21, 2026 hearing and directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.