Johnson v. Department of Veteran Admin Medical Center

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 10, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-0780
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________ ) BELINDA G. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-0780 (RC) ) DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN ) ADMIN MEDICAL CTR, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 14, 2023, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (ECF No. 7)

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the Court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction and that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. On August 15, 2023, the Court issued an Order (ECF No. 8) advising this pro se

plaintiff of her obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules of this Court.

The Order set September 15, 2023, as the deadline for plaintiff’s opposition or other response to

the motion and warned that the Court would resolve the motion without the benefit of plaintiff’s

position if she failed to respond timely. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response or requested

more time to do so. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain “‘a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]’” Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

1 Further, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Although a pro se complaint is

“held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Erickson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), it “must

plead ‘factual matter’ that permits the court to infer ‘more than the mere possibility of

misconduct,’” Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681-82 (D.C.

Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79). As drafted, the complaint, which is vague,

conclusory, and partially illegible, fails to meet these goals. Mere allegations that law

enforcement officers at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center detained plaintiff for

approximately 33 minutes on March 23, 2023, issued her a citation, and demanded that she sign

the citation, does not state a plausible legal claim.

If the complaint were construed as a tort claim against a federal government agency for

monetary damages, it would proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). See 28

U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-80. The FTCA claim fails for two reasons. First, a plaintiff cannot pursue

an FTCA claim against the United States unless she first has presented her claim to the

appropriate federal agency and the agency has denied that claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b);

McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 111 (1993). This exhaustion requirement is

jurisdictional, and absent any showing by plaintiff that she had exhausted her administrative

remedies, the Court lacks jurisdiction. See Abdurrahman v. Engstrom, 168 F. App’x 445 (D.C.

Cir. 2005). Second, while the FTCA is one example of an express waiver of the federal

2 government’s sovereign immunity, it does not expose the United States to liability for the

commission of all torts, see, e.g., Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 6 (1962). By alleging

there as “no notification as to why [her] freedom” was restricted, Compl. at 1, the Court

understands plaintiff to raise a claim under the Fourth or Fifth Amendment to the United States

Constitution, and “the United States simply has not rendered itself liable under [the FTCA] for

constitutional tort claims,” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 478 (1994).

An Order is issued separately.

DATE: October 10, 2023 /s/ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge