Rex v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BENJAMIN J. REX, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-01425 (UNA) ) ) FEDERAL BUREAU OF ) INVESTIGATION, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint against the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court

grants the IFP application and dismisses the complaint.

Plaintiff, a resident of New Mexico, alleges that on February 1, 2025, in Washington, D.C.,

the FBI prevented him from updating his “license plates by means of stopping the motor on [his]

vehicle with the use of psycho technology as a part of an investigation,” and “from obtaining a

physical address necessary to update the license plates[.]” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4. As a result,

Plaintiff received “a ticket from the local Washington D.C. police department on the date listed at

the location listed.” Id. Plaintiff claims that the FBI “(1) performed acts that a person of ordinary

prudence in the same or similar circumstances would not have done; or (2) failed to perform acts

that a person of ordinary prudence would have done” under similar circumstances. Id. Plaintiff

seeks $65,000 in compensatory damages. Id.

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power authorized

by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). It is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden

of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a) (requiring a party seeking relief in the district court to plead facts that bring the suit within the

court’s jurisdiction). As a United States agency component, the FBI is immune from suit save

“clear congressional consent[.]” United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). A waiver

of immunity “must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text, and [it cannot] be implied.” Lane

v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (cleaned up).

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), waives the United States’

immunity for certain claims seeking money damages. See id. §§2674, 2679-80. Before filing suit,

however, an FTCA claimant must exhaust administrative remedies by presenting the claim to the

appropriate federal agency and obtaining a final written denial of the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).

If an agency fails to render a decision within six months after the claim is submitted, the claimant

may proceed to court “any time thereafter” on what is “deemed” to be “a final denial.” Id. Nothing

suggests that Plaintiff has pursued, much less exhausted, administrative remedies under the FTCA,

and in this circuit, the FTCA’s presentment requirement is “jurisdictional.” Simpkins v. D.C.

Gov’t, 108 F.3d 366, 371 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113

(1993)); Norton v. United States, 530 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6-7 (D.D.C. 2021) (collecting cases).

Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

_________/s/____________ JIA M. COBB Date: September 4, 2025 United States District Judge