Bryan v. Stevens

• Decision Date: 19 October 2001
• Docket Number: No. CIV. A. H-00-4411.,CIV. A. H-00-4411.
• Parties: John Wesley BRYAN, Plaintiff, v. CLARENCE ANTHONY STEVENS, Metropolitan Transit Authority and United States of America, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

169 F.Supp.2d 676

John Wesley BRYAN, Plaintiff, v. CLARENCE ANTHONY STEVENS, Metropolitan Transit Authority and United States of America, Defendants.

No. CIV. A. H-00-4411.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas.

October 19, 2001.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Mark Benjamin Levin, Attorney at Law, Houston, TX, for John Wesley Bryan, plaintiffs.

Randy Frazier, Jr., Metroplitan Transit Authority, Elizabeth F. Karpati, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Clarence Anthony Stevens, Metropolitan Transit Authority, United States of America, defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CRONE, United States Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the court is Defendant United States of America's ("United States") Motion to Dismiss and Amended Motion to Dismiss (#'s 9, 16). The United States seeks dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of Plaintiff John Wesley Bryan's ("Bryan") complaint alleging claims for negligence and negligent entrustment under Texas law. Having reviewed the motion, the submissions of the parties, the pleadings, and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the dismissal of Bryan's claims against the United States is warranted.

I. Background

On January 13, 1999, Bryan was a passenger on a Metropolitan Transit Authority ("Metro") bus when it allegedly collided with a United States Postal Service ("USPS") vehicle driven by Howard Wayne Young ("Young") at the intersection of Congress and Louisiana Streets in Houston, Texas. Bryan claims to have suffered serious personal injuries as a result of the collision.

Bryan's complaint, filed on December 19, 2000, as amended on April 5, 2001, alleges claims against the United States for negligence arising from the actions of Young under a theory of respondeat superior and from the negligent entrustment of its vehicle to Young. On March 1, 2001, the United States filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of this action due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The United States asserts that Bryan failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") and is now barred from maintaining this action. Specifically, the United States asserts that Bryan did not properly present his claim to the USPS, as mandated by the regulations governing tort claims against the Postal Service. In response, Bryan submitted a letter and a draft of a letter dated January 4, 2000, from his counsel addressed to the Assistant General Counsel, Claims Division, U.S. Postal Service, informing the USPS of his claims. In reply, the United States notes that Bryan has adduced no proof that he mailed the letter or, more critically, that the USPS received it, adding that the letter also fails to specify a sum certain in damages as required by the regulations. The United States subsequently amended its motion to state that Bryan's amended complaint does not cure the defects delineated in its original motion.

II. Analysis

A. Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(1)

Motions filed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district court. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). "`A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.'" Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1187 (2d Cir.1996)). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, absent jurisdiction conferred by statute or the Constitution, lack the power to adjudicate claims. See Stockman v. Federal Election Comm'n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir.1998); Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 1996); Veldhoen v. United States Coast Guard, 35 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1994). The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking to invoke it. See Stockman, 138 F.3d at 151; St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir.1998); Boudreau v. United States, 53 F.3d 81, 82 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1071, 116 S.Ct. 771, 133 L.Ed.2d 724 (1996); Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co., 742 F.2d 888, 889 (5th Cir.1984); Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 953, 101 S.Ct. 358, 66 L.Ed.2d 217 (1980). Indeed, "there is a presumption against subject matter jurisdiction that must be rebutted by the party bringing an action to federal court." Coury, 85 F.3d at 248 (citing Strain, 742 F.2d at 889).

"In ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a court may evaluate (1) the complaint alone, (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts in the record, or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420, 424 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, 69 U.S.L.W. 3791 (U.S. June 11, 2001) (No. 00-1842); accord Robinson v. TCI/US West Communications Inc., 117 F.3d 900, 904 (5th Cir. 1997); McAllister v. FDIC, 87 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir.1996); Barrera-Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir.1996); Ynclan v. Department of Air Force, 943 F.2d 1388, 1390 (5th Cir.1991). Nevertheless, all uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true. See Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As, 241 F.3d at 424; Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 412 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 897, 102 S.Ct. 396, 70 L.Ed.2d 212 (1981); Cloud v. United States, 126 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1017 (S.D.Tex. 2000). Thus, when examining a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), unlike a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the district court is entitled to consider disputed facts as well as undisputed facts in the record. See Clark v. Tarrant County, 798 F.2d 736, 741 (5th Cir.1986); Williamson, 645 F.2d at 413; Cloud, 126 F.Supp.2d at 1017.

It is well settled that "a district court has broader power to decide its own right to hear the case than it has when the merits of the case are reached." Williamson, 645 F.2d at 413. "Jurisdictional issues are for the court — not a jury — to decide whether they hinge on legal or factual determinations." Id. To determine whether jurisdiction exists, the court will generally resolve any factual disputes from the pleadings and the affidavits submitted by the parties. See Espinoza v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 754 F.2d 1247, 1248 n. 1 (5th Cir.1985). The court may also conduct an evidentiary hearing and "may hear conflicting written and oral evidence and decide for itself the factual issues which determine jurisdiction." Williamson, 645 F.2d at 413; see Menchaca, 613 F.2d at 511-12. The court must always be mindful, however, of "`"the first principle of federal jurisdiction,"'" which requires a federal court to dismiss an action whenever it appears that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Stockman, 138 F.3d at 151 (quoting Veldhoen, 35 F.3d at 225 (quoting HART & WECHSLER, THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 835 (2d ed.1973))).

B. Sovereign Immunity

"It is elementary that `[t]he United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued ..., and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit.'" United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538, 100 S.Ct. 1349, 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980) (quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941)); see Jeanmarie v. United States, 242 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir.2001); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Atkins, 225 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir.2000); Linkous v. United States, 142 F.3d 271, 275 (5th Cir.1998). The doctrine of sovereign immunity operates to preclude lawsuits against the United States, its agencies, and its employees acting in their official capacity. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994); Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 280, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983); Ecclesiastical Order of the Ism of Am., Inc. v. Chasin, 845 F.2d 113, 115-16 (6th Cir.1988); Carelli v. IRS, 668 F.2d 902, 904 (6th Cir.1982). Sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar to such actions unless the United States waives immunity and consents to suit. See Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475, 114 S.Ct. 996; Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 554, 108 S.Ct. 1965, 100 L.Ed.2d 549 (1988); Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 586-87, 61 S.Ct. 767; United States v. Shaw, 309 U.S. 495, 501, 60 S.Ct. 659, 84 L.Ed. 888 (1940); Bank One Tex., N.A. v. Taylor, 970 F.2d 16, 33 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 906, 113 S.Ct. 2331, 124 L.Ed.2d 243 (1993). "Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit." Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475, 114 S.Ct. 996 (citing Loeffler, 486 U.S. at 554, 108 S.Ct. 1965; Federal Hous. Admin. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242, 244, 60 S.Ct. 488, 84 L.Ed. 724 (1940)); see Spawn v. Western Bank—Westheimer, 989 F.2d 830, 835 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 1048, 127 L.Ed.2d 371 (1994). The principle of sovereign immunity "has been deeply embedded in our federal system from its inception." Welch v. Texas Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 488, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987). It is based "on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S.Ct. 526, 51 L.Ed. 834 (1907).

Thus, a court may not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a claim against the federal government except as Congress allows. See United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814, 96 S.Ct. 1971 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976); Armendariz-Mata v. United States Dep't of Justice, 82 F.3d 679, 682 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 937, 117 S.Ct. 317, ...