Williams v. Department of the Army, Judge Advocate General

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 28, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-05500
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 LISETTE C WILLIAMS, et al., CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05500-DGE 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, and HUGO V 14 MENDOZA SOLDIER FAMILY CARE CENTER, 15 Defendants. 16 17 I INTRODUCTION 18 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Lisette Williams’ Motion for Default 19 Judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 15, 16.)1 Because Plaintiff brings this action under the Federal Tort 20 Claims Act (“FTCA”), the Court questions whether Plaintiff has named the proper party as a 21 22

1 On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment. (Dkt. No. 15.) On 23 February 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a duplicate Motion for Default Judgment. (Dkt. No. 16.) Therefore, the Court considers both motions simultaneously. 24 1 defendant. As a result, the Court questions whether it has authority to grant default judgment 2 against Defendants Department of the Army, Judge Advocate General and Hugo V. Mendoza 3 Soldier Family Care Center. 4 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a brief that shows the two named

5 Defendants, the Department of the Army, Judge Advocate General and Hugo V. Mendoza 6 Soldier Family Care Center, are the right parties to sue in this action brought under the FTCA. 7 In the alternative, if Plaintiff determines that the named parties are not the right party to sue in 8 this action, Plaintiff may file a Motion to Amend the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 9 Procedure 15(a)(2) and would then need to proceed accordingly. 10 II BACKGROUND 11 On April 12, 2018, Ms. Jean Bernardini, a Nurse Case Manager at the William Beaumont 12 Army Medical Center, allegedly disclosed and released private medical information about 13 Plaintiff’s children to the State of Texas Child Protective Services. (Dkt. No. 5 at 12-13.)2 14 Plaintiff filed claims under the FTCA with the Fort Bliss Claims Office, Office of the Staff Judge

15 Advocate on April 13, 2020. (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff’s claims were denied. (Dkt. No. 5 at 11, 13.) 16 On July 12, 2021, appearing pro se, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and Application to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) with the United States District Court for the Western District 18 of Washington. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff’s IFP status was approved on August 16, 2021. Plaintiff 19 served the summons and a copy of the Complaint on the two named parties in this action: 20 Department of the Army, Judge Advocate General and Hugo V. Mendoza Soldier Family Care 21 Center. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) Neither the Department of the Army, Judge Advocate General nor 22

2 In describing the factual background, the Court relies on the Plaintiff’s allegations in her 23 Complaint as well as the administrative filings attached to the Complaint. (See generally Dkt. No. 5.) 24 1 Hugo V. Mendoza Family Care Center responded. (Dkt. No. 15 at 2.) On February 15, 2022, 2 Plaintiff requested that the Court enter default judgment against the Defendants named in 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Dkt. No. 15.) 4 III DISCUSSION

5 “When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to 6 plead or otherwise, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the 7 party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). However, the Court questions whether the two named 8 parties are the right parties to be listed as defendants in Plaintiff’s suit under the FTCA. Thus, 9 the Court questions whether it has authority to enter default judgment against the parties named 10 by Plaintiff. 11 Plaintiff appears to allege only one claim against Defendants under the FTCA. (See 12 generally Dkt. No. 5.) Specifically, she alleges that, due to “[t]he Defendant(s) negligence and 13 reckless[] actions” and “unreasonable and serious interference with intrusion of privacy 14 disclosure of HIPAA in order to file a false claim to the Texas Department of Child Protective

15 Services[,]” Plaintiff and her two minor child suffered personal injury including emotional 16 distress. (Dkt. No. 5 at 4.) 17 The FTCA provides the exclusive remedy against the United States for claims involving 18 the tortious or wrongful acts or omissions of employees or agents of the federal government. 28 19 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). The United Sates is the only proper defendant in a suit under the FTCA. 20 14 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3658 (4th ed. 21 2021) (“A suit under the FTCA must be ‘against the United States’”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 22 1346(b)). See also Ivey v. U.S., 873 F. Supp. 663, 667 (N.D. Ga. 1995) (“In a FTCA claim, only 23 the United States is a proper defendant.”). Because the FTCA requires a Plaintiff to name the

24 1 “United States” as the sole defendant, the Court questions whether Plaintiff has named the proper 2 defendant in this action, and consequently, whether the Court has the authority to enter default 3 judgment against the named defendants. 4 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a response brief that shows the

5 Department of the Army, Judge Advocate General and Hugo V. Mendoza Soldier Family Care 6 Center are the right parties to sue in this action. In the alternative, if Plaintiff determines the 7 named parties are not proper, Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint 8 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which, if approved, will need to be 9 properly served. 10 Plaintiff shall file a response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause no later than April 1, 11 2022. 12 Dated this 28th day of February, 2022. 13 A 14 David G. Estudillo 15 United States District Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24