Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 22, 2023

Satterwhite v. United States Department of Justice

Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Docket
5:23-cv-05953
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil RightsCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Satterwhite v. Justice Department, Judge Cousins ordered Satterwhite to show why the court has jurisdiction over his claims.

Who this affects

DaCorey Satterwhite must respond with evidence that the United States Department of Justice clearly waived sovereign immunity; the case could be dismissed if he does not comply.

What happened

Satterwhite v. United States Department of Justice concerns a complaint alleging that the Justice Department violated Satterwhite’s civil rights by failing to investigate or protect against microchip implants in his body.

The court explained that the federal government generally cannot be sued unless it clearly agrees to be sued. It ordered Satterwhite to provide written evidence of such an agreement by December 22, 2023, and warned that failing to respond could result in dismissal. The court did not decide the underlying allegations.

Judge Nathanael M. Cousins issued the order and referred Satterwhite to the Federal Pro Se Program for information and limited legal advice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Satterwhite v. United States Department of Justice · No. 5:23-cv-05953
Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Date
Nov. 22, 2023

Background

DaCorey Satterwhite sued the United States Department of Justice, alleging multiple civil-rights violations. According to the complaint, the allegations arose from the Department of Justice’s alleged failure to investigate and protect against microchip implants in Satterwhite’s body.

Jurisdiction and sovereign immunity

After reviewing the complaint, the court identified a potential jurisdiction problem. The court explained that the federal government is generally protected by sovereign immunity, meaning it cannot be sued unless it has clearly consented to the lawsuit. The party relying on a waiver must show that the government’s consent was clearly stated in statutory text and applies to the claims at issue.

The court found that Satterwhite had not alleged facts supporting a reasonable inference that the Department of Justice waived sovereign immunity for his claims. The court therefore ordered Satterwhite to provide evidence of an unequivocal waiver in a written response.

Order

The court ordered Satterwhite to file the written response by December 22, 2023. It stated that failure to comply may result in dismissal of the case. The order did not dismiss the case or decide whether Satterwhite’s underlying civil-rights allegations were valid. The court also referred Satterwhite to the Federal Pro Se Program at the San Jose Courthouse, which provides information and limited-scope legal advice to people representing themselves in federal civil cases.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.