Cheesman v. US Department of Homeland Security

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: September 4, 2020
• Docket: 1:20-cv-03054
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Sep 04, 2020 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 ROY D. CHEESMAN, No. 1:20-CV-03054-SAB 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ORDER DISMISSING 13 SECURITY, TRANSPORTATION PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; 14 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, CLOSING FILE 15 Defendant. 16 17 On June 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 6. On 18 July 22, 2020, and September 2, 2020, he filed Motions to Add Party to Summons 19 the United States Attorney’s Office of Virginia, U.S.A., TSA HR Service Center, 20 Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, 21 ECF Nos. 7, 8. Plaintiff is representing himself in this matter. 22 Plaintiff is suing the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) because 23 gun parts that were in his baggage was seized by Philippine custom officials at the 24 Clark International Airport in the Philippines. It appears that Plaintiff blames the 25 seizure on TSA because it did not seal one of his bags with Homeland Security 26 “tape logo stickers,” after they inspected it in Seattle, Washington. He alleges that 27 TSA tape sealed 7 of his 8 bags, including one that contained “50 rounds of live 28 9mm ammunition that were in the middle of a rubber hose sitting on top of a 6-gal 1 electric metal air compressor,” but failed to tape seal the eighth bag. It was this bag 2 that contained the gun parts that was eventually seized by Philippine officials at the 3 airport. He maintains that the Philippines Custom Employee at Clark International 4 Airport confiscated the gun parts because the checked baggage was unmarked and 5 was not sealed by TSA. Plaintiff asserts that the failure to seal the bag was the 6 result of racial profiling on the part of TSA. 7 Plaintiff is seeking the retrieval of the gun parts from the Philippines 8 customs to be returned to the United States. He is seeking $5,000,000 in economic 9 and noneconomic damages. 10 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Review 11 When an individual seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is 12 required to review the complaint and dismiss such complaint, or portions of the 13 complaint, if it is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which 14 relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 15 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 16 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981). A plaintiff’s claim is frivolous “when the facts alleged rise 17 to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are 18 judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 19 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). 20 Analysis 21 Although given a second chance to do so, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state 22 a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has not identified a legal basis 23 to seek the relief he is requesting, namely the retrieval of the gun parts from the 24 Philippines customs. At the heart of the matter, it is Plaintiff, not TSA, who is 25 responsible for placing the gun parts in his baggage and attempting to smuggle the 26 parts into the Philippines. TSA has no duty to tag luggage in an effort to keep the 27 Philippine officials from searching certain bags that enter their country. Moreover, 28 it is unclear and doubtful that the TSA officials who inspected Plaintiff’s bags 1 knew of his nationality. Plaintiff asserts that the bags were “inspected and screened 2 somewhere inside the SeaTac International airport building/facility by the U.S. 3 Homeland Security TSA.” Neither the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 4 111, nor the Transportation Security Administration Act, § 114, provide a private 5 cause of action. 6 Under the traditional doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States is 7 immune from suit unless it has waived immunity. United States v. Mitchell, 463 8 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). One such waiver is the Federal Torts Claims Act (“FTCA”), 9 which permits suits against the United States for the negligence of its employees. 10 28 U.S.C. § 2674. Plaintiff has not established that TSA had a duty to him to tag 11 and seal his bags to prevent Philippine officials from inspecting his bags and as 12 such, fails to allege a negligence claim against TSA. Moreover, it does not appear 13 that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies, which is required before he 14 can bring a claim in federal court under the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); 15 McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 112 (1993)(“The FTCA bars claimants 16 from bringing suit in federal court until they have exhausted their administrative 17 remedies.”); Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 518 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that 18 before an individual can file an action against the United States in district court, he 19 must seek an administrative resolution of his claim). The exhaustion requirement is 20 jurisdictional. Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, to 21 the extent Plaintiff is bringing his claims under the FTCA, the Court does not have 22 jurisdiction over the claims. 23 Leave to Amend 24 Previously, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend in order to present 25 allegations that would state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is clear 26 that Plaintiff cannot do so because the underlying premise of his claim is faulty, 27 that is, TSA is somehow responsible for Plaintiff’s decision to put gun parts in his 28 baggage and attempt to enter the Philippines with the baggage. TSA does not owe 1|| Plaintiff a duty to ensure that his baggage would be accepted in the Philippines. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 6, is DISMISSED. 2. Plaintiff's Motions to Add party to Summons, ECF Nos. 7 and 8, are 5 DENIED, at moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, forward copies to Plaintiff, and close the file. 8 DATED this 4th day of September 2020. 9 10 11 12 Sucker Ecsta 4 Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28