Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 12-7007
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00480-CMH-IDD)
Submitted:
Decided:
November 7, 2012
PER CURIAM:
Khalifah
Iman
Whitner
appeals
the
district
courts
of
her
motions
for
emergency
injunctive
relief.
We affirm.
After
review
of
the
record
and
Whitners
appellate
pursuant
to
28 U.S.C.
1915(e)(2)(B)
(2006),
which
248
pleadings
(4th
are
Cir.
to
be
2005).
Although
construed
liberally,
pro
se
Gordon
litigants
v.
Leeke,
574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), her complaint must contain
factual allegations sufficient to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level and that state a claim to relief that is
2
has
186,
omitted).
true,
acted
193
She
relief.
(4th
must
demonstrate
unlawfully.
Cir.
2009)
articulate
she
has
Francis
(internal
facts
stated
v.
that,
claim
Giacomelli,
quotation
when
marks
accepted
entitling
her
as
to
Id.
Whitners allegations fail to state a plausible claim
for relief under 1981 against any named Defendant because she
does
not
allege
facts
sufficient
to
show
that
any
Defendant
any
1981(a).
F.3d
elements
1085,
of
of
1087
a
the
activities
(2nd Cir.
claim
for
1993)
relief
enumerated
(per
under
in
curiam)
42
U.S.C.
(listing
1981).
the
Whitners
2001)
that
the
deeds
of
ostensibly
private
insofar
as
Whitners
allegations
are
meant to raise claims under 1983 against the United States and
the State of Michigan, such claims are frivolous.
Supreme
Court
individual
has
federal
recognized
cause
officers
who
of
Although the
action
violate
against
plaintiffs
United
consented
court,
States.
to
be
thereby
Further,
sued
for
waiving
the
civil
its
State
rights
immunity
of
Michigan
violations
under
has
in
the
not
federal
Eleventh
must
(6th Cir.
be
1986)
clear);
(noting
Abick
that
v.
the
Michigan,
state
of
803
Michigan
F.2d
874,
877
has
not
Whitners
complaint
also
invokes
28
U.S.C.A.
(FTCA),
and
Administrative
Section
U.S.C.
Procedure
1346(b)(1)
Act
grants
702,
(APA),
the
a
as
provision
of
bases
for
relief.
district
courts
federal
the
liable.
28
U.S.C.A.
however,
do
not
1346(b)(1);
FDIC
v.
Meyer,
within
this
category
of
claims
We further
Lujan
v.
Natl
Wildlife
Fedn,
497
U.S.
871,
882
court
did
not
abuse
its
discretion
in
denying
her
pauperis,
we
although
affirm
we
the
grant
leave
district
to
proceed
courts
in
judgment.
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED