Cargill v. United States Department of the Treasury

• Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
• Decided: September 3, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00382
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

QUINCETTA Y. CARGILL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:20-cv-382-CLM-GMB ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) OF THE TREASURY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Quincetta Y. Cargill has filed a pro se complaint pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Ethics in Government Act. Doc. 1 at 1. The Magistrate Judge entered a report on April 26, 2021 recommending the dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Doc. 17. The Magistrate Judge further recommended the denial of Cargill’s motions for default judgment. Doc. 17. Since the entry of the report, Cargill has filed a “motion to prompt action by defendants,” in which she requests that the defendants be “ordered to admit the truth” of her claims. Doc. 18 at 1. Cargill also filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. Doc. 19. Cargill restates in both her motion and objections that she has been wrongfully imprisoned due to the defendants’ contributory negligence. Docs. 18 & 19. Specifically, she maintains that she would not have been able to file fraudulent income tax returns if the defendants had required proof of identity. Doc. 18 at 3–8;

Doc. 19 at 5–6 & 8. But Cargill does not address the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions that she cannot assert an FTCA claim because (1) she has not named the United States as a defendant, (2) she is barred from seeking relief under the FTCA for

mental or emotional injuries without a showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(2), and (3) her complaint does not reflect that she has exhausted her administrative remedies under the FTCA. Doc. 17 at 4– 6. Instead, Cargill references qualified immunity (Doc. 19 at 2), which has no

bearing on her FTCA claims. See Shivers v. United States, 1 F.4th 924, 931 (11th Cir. 2021) (noting that “the FTCA is not based on alleged constitutional violations”). Additionally, as the Magistrate Judge found, Cargill has made no effort to

demonstrate standing to sue under the Ethics in Government Act. Doc. 17 at 7–8. She also has not made any showing to overcome the Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994), bar to recover damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief for her allegedly unconstitutional convictions and imprisonment. Doc. 17 at 7–8.

Accordingly, Cargill’s objections are OVERRULED. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, and the objections thereto, the

court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because this action is due to be dismissed prior to service, the court DENIES the plaintiff's motions for default judgment (Docs. 13 & 14) and “to

prompt action by the defendants” to make certain admissions (Doc. 18). A Final Judgment will be entered. DONE on September 3, 2021.

Lace Hag ae COREY LSMAZE 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE