Carey A. Nolan v. United States of America

[[COURTLISTENER_SUBOPINION {"id":"11176644","type":"100trialcourt","part":"other","author":null,"source_field":"html_with_citations"}]]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                          


CAREY A. NOLAN                                                            

     v.                                    Case No. 25-cv-356-SM-AJ  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                  


             REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION                               
Carey A. Nolan filed a Complaint in this matter (Doc. No. 3) along with a document 
Nolan entitled, “Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief” (Doc. No. 2), which asks this court to 
order a federal investigation.   The Complaint, naming the United States as the sole defendant, is 
here for preliminary review under
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(e)(2).  Nolan’s (unsigned) motion (Doc. No. 
2) has been referred to the magistrate judge for a Report and Recommendation.  

                       Background                                    
The Complaint asserts that Nolan was stalked and sexually assaulted by a group of people 
Nolan believes may be affiliated with a property Nolan rented.  Nolan asserts that the stalkers 
used “signal-based technology.”  Nolan asked state law enforcement agents for help, but Nolan’s 
requests did not yield results.  No investigation happened.  Nolan was also told that a protective 
order will not be issued because Nolan lacks evidence.  Nolan believes that there may be public 
corruption involved.  Nolan names the United States as a defendant, but allege no facts regarding 
the acts or omissions of any federal agent or federal agency.             

                       Discussion                                    
The United States’  “‘[s]overeign immunity is jurisdictional in nature’ and deprives 
courts of the power to hear suits against the United States absent Congress’s express consent.”  
United States v. Miller,
145 S. Ct. 839, 849
(2025) (citation omitted).  This court must dismiss a 
case if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).   
Nolan has not asserted any facts to show that the United States’s sovereign immunity is 

waived, or that this court has jurisdiction over this case.  This court does not have jurisdiction 
over every case involving the United States as a defendant.  See Davallou v. United States,
998 
F.3d 502, 504
(1st Cir. 2021).  Nolan has not pleaded facts showing that Congress waived the 
United States’s sovereign immunity in the context of the Complaint’s allegations, and for that 
reason, the district judge should dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. 
Furthermore, the relief Nolan seeks – a court order directing the United States to 
investigate matters concerning Nolan’s allegations -- is not available.  Cannady v. Rathke, No. 
CA 09-07 S,
2009 WL 335067
, at *2,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134445
, at *6 (D.R.I. Jan. 15, 
2009) (citing cases), R&R approved,
2009 WL 335067
,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10817
(D.R.I. 
Feb. 9, 2009).  Cf. United States v. Texas,
599 U.S. 670, 677
(2023) (“‘a citizen lacks standing to 

contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor 
threatened with prosecution’” (quoting Linda R.S. v. Richard D.,
410 U.S. 614, 619
(1973)); 
United States v. Nixon,
418 U.S. 683, 693
(1974) (“the Executive Branch has exclusive authority 
and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case”).  Accordingly, the district judge 
should deny Nolan’s motion for emergency injunctive relief, seeking a court-ordered federal 
investigation of Nolan’s allegations.                                     

                      CONCLUSION                                     
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should dismiss Nolan’s Complaint (Doc. No. 
3) for lack of jurisdiction and should deny the motion for emergency injunctive relief (Doc. No. 
2).  Then, the clerk’s office should enter judgment and close this case. 
 Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of 
receipt of this notice.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).  The objection period may be extended upon 
motion. Only those issues raised in the written objections “‘are subject to review in the district 
court,’” and any issues “‘not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.’” Santos-Santos 
v. Torres-Centeno,
842 F.3d 163, 168
(1st Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). 

                               Lueuiols pontine 
                              Andrea    Johnstone           
                               United States Magistrate Judge 
September 24, 2025 
ce:    Carey A. Nolan, pro se