Alvarez v. Director

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 21, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-3006
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAMON ALVAREZ-RODRIGUEZ, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action No. 24-3006 (UNA) : WARDEN, FCI MARION, et al., : : Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court GRANTS the application and DISMISSES the

complaint.

Plaintiff brings a “[c]laim for personal property lost while in the care and control of the

Bureau of Prisons during [his] transfer from ADX FLORENCE to FCU TERRE HAUTE.”

Compl. at 4 (emphasis in original). He attaches to his complaint correspondence from BOP’s

North Central Regional Office acknowledging receipt of plaintiff’s administrative claim on

February 10, 2023, and notifying plaintiff that his claim would be treated as a small claim under

31 U.S.C. § 3723. See id., Ex. (ECF No. 1-2). Presumably BOP refused to settle the claim, and

plaintiff now demands payment, see id. at 4, citing the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) as the

basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, see id. 2.

The FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity “under circumstances where the

United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of

the place where the act or omission occurred.” Hornbeck Offshore Transp., LLC v. United States,

569 F.3d 506, 508 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1)). It is a limited waiver of

1 sovereign immunity which “renders the United States subject to suit for certain – but not all –

tort claims.” Atherton v. United States, 174 F. Supp. 3d 359, 363 (D.D.C. 2016). Specifically

excluded is a “claim arising in respect of . . . the detention of any goods, merchandise, or other

property by any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer.” 28 U.S.C. §

2680(c). BOP officers are considered law enforcement officers for FTCA purposes, see Ali v.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 219–21 (2008), and “a federal prisoner’s FTCA claim

arising out of the loss of personal property during a transfer between federal prisons” is therefore

barred, Moler v. Potter, No. 6:19-cv-205-CHB, 2020 WL 2476758, at *3 (E.D. Ky. May 13,

2020), aff’d, No. 20-5579, 2020 WL 9886297 (6th Cir. Dec. 30, 2020).

Plaintiff cannot proceed under 31 U.S.C. § 3723 either. “Section 3723, which is part of

the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees’ Claims Act, provides no mechanism for judicial

review of the agency head’s decision not to settle a claim.” Moler, 2020 WL 2476758, at *3

(citing 31 U.S.C. § 3721(k)).

An Order is issued separately.

DATE: February 21, 2025 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge

2 ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [2] is GRANTED; it

is

FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint and this civil action are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

This is a final appealable Order.

The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this matter.

SO ORDERED.

DATE: February 21, 2025 AMIR H. ALI United States District Judge