Enoch Bolden v. United States (8th Cir. 2002)

Federal Circuits, 8th Cir. (August 23, 2002)

Docket number: 01-3847

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/enoch-bolden-v-united-states-18501164
Id. vLex: VLEX-18501164

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - 2 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 111, 2 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,078 Louis J. Gnotta, Appellant, v. United States of America; the United States Civil Service Commission; Thedepartment of the Army, Kansas City District Corps of Engineers; Colonel W. G.Kratz; M. F. Hoy; D. H. Myers; M. M. Turner; O. E. Pettijohn; F. M. Nelson; H.B. Haworth,Appellees., 415 F.2d 1271 (8th Cir. 1969)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Jane Doe, Individually and on Behalf of Her Four Infant Children, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. Benjamin Civiletti, United States Attorney General, John Fallon, Director, Northeastern Region, Federal Drug Enforcement Administration, Norman A. Carlson, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Jack Walsh, United States Marshals Service, and the United States of America, Defendants-Appellees., 635 F.2d 88 (2nd Cir. 1980) Individually and on Behalf of Her Four Infant Children, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. Benjamin Civiletti, United States Attorney General, John Fallon, Director, Northeastern Region, Federal Drug Enforcement Administration, Norman A. Carlson, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Jack Walsh, United States Marshals Service, and the United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-3847

Enoch L. Bolden, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee.

Submitted: July 25, 2002 Filed: August 23, 2002

Before MURPHY, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Enoch Bolden appeals from the district courtÂ’s1 dismissal without prejudice of his action against the United States seeking specific performance of an agreement with the federal government to provide witness protection for himself and a custodial transfer for his son. Having carefully reviewed the record and the partiesÂ’ briefs, we conclude dismissal was proper. There has been no express waiver of sovereign immunity, and the United States has not consented to suit. See Gnotta v. United States, 415 F.2d 1271, 1276 (8th Cir. 1969) ("One cannot sue the United Stateswithout its consent and a court has no jurisdiction against the United States to which it has not consented."), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 934 (1970); see also Doe v. Civiletti, 635 F.2d 88, 88 (2d Cir. 1980) (observing "well-established rule that the federal courts do not have power to order specific performance by the United States of its alleged contractual obligations," in affirming dismissal of complaint seeking injunction requiring subsistence payments, protection, and re-enrollment in witness protection program). Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

[UNPUBLISHED]

[1] The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.