Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MARILYN WILLIAMS-GOODE,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS F. EAGLETON
COURTHOUSE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:25-cv-01278-JMD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Marilyn Williams-Goode, a self-represented litigant, brings this action
against the Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse. ECF 1 at 1–2. Having reviewed her motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF 2, the Court finds that she lacks sufficient funds to
pay the fees associated with this action and therefore grants the motion. Nevertheless, for
the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
I. 	Background
Williams-Goode names the Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse as the sole defendant in
this case. ECF 1 at 2. She states, however, that this is “not a suit” and that she needs “to be
scheduled to take [an] oath.” Id. at 3. Williams-Goode further asserts that she filed an N400
(Application for Naturalization) on December 31, 2023, and wants the Court to schedule her
oath ceremony within five months. Id. at 5. She attributes this urgency to “Abuse from the
State of MO.” Id. She also expresses a desire to “Retire from OPM Wage Assignment.” Id.
Case: 4:25-cv-01278-JMD Doc. #: 8 Filed: 01/30/26 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
II. 	Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court may dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Martinez v. Turner,
977 F.2d 421, 423 (8th Cir. 1992).
To state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead more than “legal conclusions” or
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The plaintiff must allege facts that demonstrate a plausible claim
for relief, which requires more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679. “A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under § 1915, the Court
accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984) (per
curiam), and liberally construes the complaint, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). Liberal construction
means that, if the Court can discern “the essence of an allegation,” it should construe the
complaint in a way that permits consideration of the claim within the proper legal
framework. 	Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Stone v. Harry,
364 F.3d 912, 915 (8th Cir. 2004)). Even so, self-represented plaintiffs must allege facts that,
if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286
Case: 4:25-cv-01278-JMD Doc. #: 8 Filed: 01/30/26 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
(8th Cir. 1980). The Court does not assume unalleged facts, Stone, 364 F.3d at 914–15, or
excuse compliance with procedural rules. 	See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113
(1993).
III. 	Discussion
Even liberally construed, Williams-Goode’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
First, Williams-Goode names the Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse as the sole
defendant. A courthouse is a physical facility, not a juridical entity capable of being sued.
Cf. De La Garza v. Kandiyohi Cnty. Jail, Correctional Institution, 18 Fed. Appx. 436, 437 (8th
Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (agreeing that a jail is “not an entity that is amenable to suit”). To
the extent Williams-Goode intends to sue the United States, sovereign immunity bars her
claims absent an express waiver. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994).
Second, the relief sought—expedition of her naturalization oath—is not available in
this Court. 	Congress vested the authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the United
States in the Executive Branch. 	See 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a). 	Federal courts lack inherent
authority 	to 	intervene 	in 	or 	direct 	the 	administrative 	processing 	of 	naturalization
applications. See I.N.S. v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875, 883–84 (1988) (“[T]he power to make
someone a citizen of the United States has not been conferred upon the federal courts[.]”).
Finally, Williams-Goode explicitly states that she is “not suing.” 	ECF 1 at 5. 	This
statement underscores the absence of a “case” or “controversy” as required by Article III of
the U.S. Constitution. 	See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101 (1998)
(explaining that Article III’s cases-and-controversies requirement “is always an antecedent
question”). Federal courts do not issue advisory opinions or provide general assistance; they
Case: 4:25-cv-01278-JMD Doc. #: 8 Filed: 01/30/26 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
resolve actual disputes between adverse parties. See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 (1968);
see also Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 361 (1911) (holding that the Constitution
limits judicial power to “actual controversies arising between adverse litigants”).
For these reasons, the Court finds that Williams-Goode’s complaint is frivolous and
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IV. 	Conclusion
The Court grants Williams-Goode’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses
this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Williams-Goode’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF 2, is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 	See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
An Order of Dismissal accompanies this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 30th day of January, 2026.
__________________________________
JOSHUA M. DIVINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01278-JMD Doc. #: 8 Filed: 01/30/26 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>