Partovi v. United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 20, 2010
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2010-1408
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 2 0 2010 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia Ali Partovi, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 10 1408 United States of America, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring

dismissal of an action "at any time" the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).

Plaintiff, an immigration detainee at the Federal Correctional Center in Florence,

Arizona, sues the United States for alleged injuries suffered while confined at facilities in Guam.

He seeks $2 million in damages. A claim for monetary damages against the United States is

cognizable under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq. Such a

claim is maintainable, however, only after the plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies

by "first present[ing] the claim to the appropriate Federal agency .... " 28 U.S.c. § 2675. This

exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. See GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 917-20

(D.C. Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Stokes v. us. Postal Service, 937 F. Supp. 11,14 (D.D.C. 1996). Plaintiff has not indicated that he exhausted ----,--.--,-------~<

his administrative remedies. I The complaint therefore will be dismissed. See Abdurrahman v.

Engstrom, 168 Fed.Appx. 445, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per curiam) ("[T]he district court properly

dismissed case [based on unexhausted FTC A claim] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."). A

separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: August .il: ,2010

I Even if plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies, this judicial district is not the proper venue for litigating plaintiffs FTCA claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b) (requiring such claims to be prosecuted "only in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or wherein the act or omission complained of occurred").