Jara v. U.S. Capitol Police

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 14, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2022-2754
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) ISAI JARA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 22-cv-2754 (APM) U.S. CAPITOL POLICE, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 4 [hereinafter Def.’s Mot.].

Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Nevertheless, the court considers Defendant’s motion on the

merits.

Plaintiff claims that on the night of June 22, 2019, while he was delivering food on his

moped scooter, U.S. Capitol Police Officer Smith began following him and proceeded to pull him

over. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 [hereinafter Notice of Removal], Compl., ECF No. 1-1

[hereinafter Compl.], at 1. Plaintiff alleges that he was stopped for about 30 minutes while he

attempted to find his Vehicle Identification Number, which he later found and verified with Officer

Smith; that the Officer called for back-up during this period; and that the Officer asked him “how

many tickets do [you] want?” Compl. at 1. The Hearing Record, which Plaintiff included in his

Complaint, states that Officer Smith observed Plaintiff failing to come to a complete stop at the

intersection of 4th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue SE, making a right turn despite a “No Turn on

Red” sign, and not making a complete stop at stop signs at 2nd and C Streets SE, and 2nd and

D Streets SE, before pulling him over. Id. at 8. Officer Smith gave Plaintiff one $25.00 ticket.

Id. Plaintiff alleges that Officer Smith’s stop was an abuse of power and that the Officer “is

racist to Hispanic[] immigrants.” Id. at 1. For the “emotional and psychological trauma” caused

by the event, Plaintiff requests $1,000,000 in damages. Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s pro se lawsuit for

alleged abuse of process was originally filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and

was removed to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1) and 1446. See Notice of Removal.

The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), which governs this case, “was designed primarily

to remove the sovereign immunity of the United States from suits in tort and, with certain specific

exceptions, to render the Government liable in tort as a private individual would be under like

circumstances.” Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 6 (1962). The FTCA states, however, that

“[a]n action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money

damages . . . unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal

agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency.” 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). This

concept, known as “administrative exhaustion,” requires the plaintiff to present the agency with

(1) “a written statement sufficiently describing the injury to enable the agency to begin its own

investigation,” and (2) “a sum-certain damages claim.” GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901,

905 (D.C. Cir. 1987). If a plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing

suit in federal court, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Simpkins v. District of

Columbia, 108 F.3d 366, 371 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

Defendant argues that the Complaint must be dismissed because Plaintiff “failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies prior to filing suit.” Def.’s Mot. at 6. The court agrees. Plaintiff failed

to plead administrative exhaustion in his Complaint, and the record before the court indicates that

no claim was presented to the agency. See Allen v. Brown, 320 F. Supp. 3d 16, 32 (D.D.C. 2018);

Def.’s Mot., Joyce Declaration, ECF No. 4-1, at ¶¶ 3–4 (stating that the agency’s Senior Counsel

2 found no FTCA claims filed by Plaintiff against Defendant). Because Plaintiff failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies, the court does not have jurisdiction over this action.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is granted. A separate, final order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

Dated: April 14, 2023 Amit P. Mehta United States District Court Judge