ALBERT v. ABBOTT et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MONTE ALBERT, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 	25-4439 (UNA)
)
GREG ABBOTT et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action brought pro se is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For
the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP motion and dismisses the complaint.
Plaintiff, a resident of Pflugerville, Texas, sues Texas’s Governor Greg Abbott and
Attorney General Ken Paxton and Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis and former Attorney General
Ashley Moody in their official capacities. He alleges that both States through public statements
and policies of “their highest officials” have stigmatized the Muslim community of which he once
belonged. 	See Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff seeks sweeping “declaratory and injunctive
relief to prohibit unconstitutional state conduct that collectively labels Muslim-associated
individuals, ex-Muslims, or civil-rights organizations as terrorists based on stereotypes, political
motives, or the actions of unrelated extremist actors.” Id. ¶ 4; see Compl. at 4-5 (Prayer for Relief).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power authorized
by Constitution and statute,” and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.”
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). This
official-capacity lawsuit “is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the
Case 1:25-cv-04439-UNA Document 4 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 2

2
[governmental] entity.” 	Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985). 	The Eleventh
Amendment immunizes states from lawsuits filed against them in federal court absent their consent
to be sued or Congress’ “unequivocally expressed” intent to abrogate the states’ sovereign
immunity.1 Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 72-73 (2000). A party seeking relief in the
district court must plead facts that bring the suit within the court’s jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a), or suffer dismissal of the case, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
U.S.C. § 2201. 	Compl. at 4. 	Section 1983 “does not provide a federal forum for litigants who
seek a remedy against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties,” Will v. Michigan Dept. of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989), and “the availability of declaratory relief presupposes the
existence of a judicially remediable right,” Ali v. Rumsfeld, 649 F.3d 762, 778 (D.C. Cir. 2011)
(cleaned up). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.
_________/s/______________
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
Date: June 1, 2026 	United States District Judge
1 	The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “The Judicial power of the United
States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted
against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any
Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. 	The Supreme Court “long ago held that the Eleventh
Amendment bars a citizen from bringing suit against the citizen’s own State in federal court, even
though the express terms of the Amendment refer only to suits by citizens of another State.” Welch
v. Tex. Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 472 (1987).
Case 1:25-cv-04439-UNA Document 4 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 2