Normandy Apts., Ltd. v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev., 554 F.3d 1290, 1295 (10th Cir.2009) (“The defense of sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, depriving courts of subject-matter jurisdiction where applicable.”); Neiberger v. Hawkins, 150 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1120 (D.Colo.2001) (“A motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity is treated as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).”). 2 . Plaintiff in part seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although not mentioned by any party, there is a question as to whether Plaintiff has standing to pursue a claim under this statute. See Inyo County, Cal. v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, 538 U.S. 701, 123 S.Ct. 1887, 155 L.Ed.2d 933 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States, 410
holding that state could not assert sovereign immunity defense where the state had waived immunity in state court and agreed to remove suit to federal court holding that tribe may not assert its treatybased fishing rights under section 1983 holding that state did not have jurisdiction over tribe where tribe paid into workers compensation program but had not waived sovereign immunity holding that plaintiffs may bring a section 1983 claim for damages to vindicate their rights under idea holding that the plaintiff tribe was not a person who could sue under section 1983 to vindicate sovereign rights namely a claimed immunity from the state court process