Davis v. United States
Decision Date | 10 May 2013 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 12–0676 (RLW). |
Citation | 944 F.Supp.2d 36 |
Parties | Melvin Lee DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Melvin Lee Davis, Leakesville, MS, pro se.
Heather D. Graham–Oliver, Nina Bafundo Crimm, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion to dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted.
It appears that the plaintiff assisted the government by providing testimony regarding an assault on a BOP staff member by inmates who were members of a gang. See Compl. at 3–4 ( ); Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl.'s Opp'n”) at 12. The plaintiff alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) transferred him to the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), which he describes as “an admitted stronghold for the gangs.” Compl. at 2.2 This transfer to MDOC, he alleges, “placed [him] in harms [sic] way,” id. at 3, by housing him among the “same gang membership” responsible for the assault on the BOP staff member. Id. at 4. Specifically, he states that, on October 30, 2011, while incarcerated at the Mississippi State Prison in Parchman, Mississippi, another inmate stabbed him with “a spear-like weapon” resulting in wounds to his left leg. Id. at 5. He claims that “BOP never informed the [MDOC] as to plaintiff's assistance and/or plaintiff's testimony, etc., and as such contributed to the stabbing and assaults upon [him].” Pl.'s Opp'n at 11 (parentheses removed). For the BOP's alleged negligence, see Compl. at 3, the plaintiff brings this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). See28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) ( ).
The FTCA operates as a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, rendering the United States amenable to suit for certain, but not all, tort claims. See, e.g., Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 6, 82 S.Ct. 585, 7 L.Ed.2d 492 (1962). “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994). A viable claim under the FTCA requires that a claimant present his claim to the appropriate federal agency prior to filing a civil action in a federal district court. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993); Benoit v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 608 F.3d 17, 20 (D.C.Cir.2010) ( ); see28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) ( ). Thus, failure to comply with these administrative filing requirements deprives the district court of jurisdiction to consider the claim. See Hammond v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 740 F.Supp.2d 105, 111 (D.D.C.2010) ( ).
The defendant moves to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit.3See Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.'s Mem.”) at 3–4. The defendant's declarant states that the plaintiff “has not filed an administrative tort claim with the BOP regarding any alleged assault or other incidents that may have occurred during his incarceration in the Mississippi Department of Corrections.” Def.'s Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.'s Reply”), Ex. A (Decl. of Kevin Littlejohn (“Littlejohn II Decl.”)) ¶ 7.4
The plaintiff responds by asserting that, on November 3, 2011, he “filed under the [FTCA] for monetary damages against the [BOP],” and mailed his claim to the BOP's North Central Regional Office in Kansas City, Kansas, with copies to BOP's Central Office in Washington, DC and to “the BOP's Montgomery Residential Office [in] Montgomery, Alabama.” Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl.'s Opp'n”) at 3; see id., Attach. A (Claim for Damage, Injury or Death). He alleges that, when he received no response, he sent a letter to the Director of the BOP on January 18, 2012 by certified mail. Id.; see id., Attach. (Letter to Director's Office from plaintiff dated January 19, 2012). This letter was returned to him, and the envelope was “stamped ... Not Deliverable As Addressed—Return to Sender—Unable to Forward.” Id. at 3. In addition, the plaintiff discussed the assault with Alvin Speights, a Residential Reentry Manager at the BOP's Montgomery, Alabama Community Corrections Office and later sent Mr. Speights two letters.5Id. at 5; see id., Attach. D (correspondence between the plaintiff and Alvin Speights).
The plaintiff may have prepared a written FTCA claim, yet missing from his submissions is the required showing that the BOP actually received the claim. See Bailey v. United States, 642 F.2d 344, 346–47 (9th Cir.1981) ( ); Crack v. United States, 694 F.Supp. 1244, 1246–47 (E.D.Va.1988) (same). The plaintiff does not state, for example, that he sent his claim to the North Central Regional Office by certified mail. Nor does he provide a receipt or other proof of mailing. Furthermore, the plaintiff's own submission shows that the certified letter intended for the BOP's Director was returned to him as undeliverable. The BOP cannot be expected to evaluate or settle a claim that it has not received, and informal complaints or requests to BOP staff do not suffice. See, e.g., Grant v. Secy., U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, No. 03–5260, 2004 WL 287125, at *1 (D.C.Cir. Feb. 4, 2004) (per curiam) ( ); Reisman v. Bullard, 14 Fed.Appx. 377, 379 (6th Cir.2001) ( ); Megna v. Food & Drug Admin., No. 08–1435, 2009 WL 749900, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2009) (, )aff'd,377 Fed.Appx. 113 (2d Cir.2010); see also Tanter v. Dep't of the Interior, 432 F.Supp.2d 58, 63 (D.D.C.2006) ( ).
The plaintiff's failure to submit an administrative claim under the FTCA to the BOP prior to filing this lawsuit deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. See Henderson v. Ratner, No. 10–5035, 2010 WL 2574175, at *1 (D.C.Cir. June 7, 2010) (per curiam) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp.
...remedies as required by the FTCA, the district court lacked jurisdiction." (internal citation omitted)); Davis v. United States , 944 F. Supp. 2d 36, 39 (D.D.C. 2013) ("The plaintiff's failure to submit an administrative claim under the FTCA to the [agency] prior to filing this lawsuit depr......
-
Mensah-Yawson v. Raden
...filing this lawsuit; for this reason, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's FTCA claim. See Davis v. United States, 944 F.Supp.2d 36, 38–39 (D.D.C.2013) (dismissing FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where prisoner plaintiff could show that he prepared......
-
Nixon v. Stiness
...by the passage of time after the complaint is filed." Price v. United States, 69 F.3d 46, 54 (5th Cir. 1995); Davis v. United States, 944 F. Supp. 2d 36, 39-40 (D.D.C. 2013). Here, the administrative claim forms Plaintiff has submitted are dated August 30, 2015 which is after the lawsuit wa......
-
Nixon v. Francis
...by the passage of time after the complaint is filed." Price v. United States, 69 F.3d 46, 54 (5th Cir. 1995); Davis v. United States, 944 F. Supp. 2d 36, 39-40 (D.D.C. 2013). The court must dismiss a complaint that fails to allege that any administrative claim was filed. McNeil, 508 U.S. at......