Tanter v. Department of the Interior

• Decision Date: 01 June 2006
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 05-2419.
• Citation: 432 F.Supp.2d 58
• Parties: April TANTER, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Page 58

432 F.Supp.2d 58

April TANTER, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 05-2419.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

June 1, 2006.

April Tanter, Greenbelt, MD, pro se.

Madelyn E. Johnson, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

URBINA, District Judge.

GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff, an employee of the National Park Service, claims that she was sexually assaulted in the parking garage at the Department of the Interior ("DOI").¹ According to the plaintiff, her attacker continued to harass her at work, causing her emotional stress and increasing the trauma of the original attack. The plaintiff brings claims against defendants DOI and National Business Center² ("NBC") for negligently failing to screen employees, creating a hostile work environment and for failing to offer her medical assistance after her attack. The defendants move to dismiss, claiming that the court lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History

On November 11, 2002, on an escalator in defendant DOI's parking garage, an NBC employee sexually assaulted the plaintiff. Compl. The plaintiffs attacker subsequently pled guilty and was convicted of the offense. Id. According to the plaintiff, the defendants, knowing that her attacker was "a drug user and a sexual predator," allowed him to return to work at NBC. Id. Back at work, he allegedly harassed the plaintiff both in the parking area and in her workplace. Id. The plaintiff contends that the defendants refused to move the plaintiffs workplace or otherwise assist her efforts to avoid contact with her attacker. Id. The plaintiff claims that the resulting stress exacerbated the post-traumatic stress disorder she developed from the attack. Id.

Subsequent to the attack, the plaintiff applied for benefits under the Federal Employees Compensation Act ("FECA"), 5 U.S.C. § 8116(a).³ Defs.' Mot., Ex. B.⁴ In November 2003, the defendants granted the plaintiff's request for FECA benefits. Id. The plaintiff continues to work at DOI and is currently on worker's compensation for injuries she sustained in the attack. Defs.' Mot. at 1.

B. Procedural History

October 4, 2005, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Compl. On December 12, 2005, the defendants removed the case to this court, Notice of Removal ¶ 4, and on February 3, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction to hear her claims, Defs.' Mot. at 3. Because the plaintiff did not respond to the defendants' motion within the prescribed time period,⁵ the court issued an order on February 23, 2006 directing the plaintiff to respond to the complaint and cautioning her that the court may treat the defendants' motion as conceded if the plaintiff failed to respond.⁶ Order (Feb. 23, 2006). The order directed the plaintiff to respond by May 31, 2006. Id. The plaintiff has not responded.⁷

III. ANALYSIS

A. The Court Grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

The defendants move to dismiss, asserting that the plaintiffs receipt of FECA benefits, as well as her failure to exhaust administrative remedies, bars her claims. Id. at 4-5. Because the plaintiff is pro se, the court cannot dismiss her complaint unless it can say that, even holding her to less stringent pleading standards, it appears beyond doubt that she can prove no set of facts which entitle her to relief. Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C.Cir.1981). Because the plaintiff has received FECA benefits for the attack, however, the plaintiff has forfeited her right to bring suit for damages related to the attack. In addition, because the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear her claims. Accordingly, the court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss.

1. Legal Standard for a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes that "a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994); St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 363 F.3d 442, 448 (D.C.Cir.2004) (noting that "[a]s a court of limited jurisdiction, we begin, and end, with an examination of our jurisdiction").

Because "subject-matter jurisdiction is an `Art. III as well as a statutory requirement[,] no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court.'" Akinseye v. Dist. of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970, 971 (D.C.Cir.2003) (quoting Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982)). On a motion to dismiss for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). The court may dismiss a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction only if "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., 315 F.3d 338, 343 (D.C.Cir.2003) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)).

Because subject-matter jurisdiction focuses on the court's power to hear the claim, however, the court must give the plaintiffs factual allegations closer scrutiny when resolving a Rule 12(b)(1) motion than would be required for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim. Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 69 (D.C.Cir.2003); Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F.Supp.2d 9, 13 (D.D.C.2001). Moreover, the court is not limited to the allegations contained in the complaint. Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227, 241 (D.C.Cir.1986), vacated on other grounds, 482 U.S. 64, 107 S.Ct. 2246, 96 L.Ed.2d 51 (1987). Instead, to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the claim, the court may consider materials outside the pleadings. Herbert v. Nat'l Acad. of Scis., 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C.Cir. 1992).

2. The Plaintiff's Receipt of FECA Benefits Bars All Claims Arising from the Attack

The plaintiff sues the defendants for failing to give her medical treatment at the time of the attack and for negligently allowing her alleged attacker to return to work, thereby creating a hostile work environment and causing her stress. Compl. The defendants argue that the plaintiff applied for, and continues to receive, benefits under FECA for her injuries resulting from the parking garage attack. Defs.' Mot. at 4-5. The defendants claim that the plaintiff cannot bring this action because, according to FECA's terms, a plaintiff who is injured and receives benefits under FECA cannot sue for damages resulting from the same injury. Id. The court agrees.

FECA allows employees to receive benefits from their federal employers quickly, without having to litigate a claim and regardless of fault. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 460 U.S. 190, 193-94, 103 S.Ct. 1033, 74 L.Ed.2d 911 (1983). The statute, however, provides for exclusive liability. 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c) (explaining that liability of the United States under FECA excludes all other liability to its employees for injury or death in judicial proceedings). Stated differently, an individual receiving benefits under FECA cannot also sue the government for damages. Id. FECA "was designed to protect the Government from suits under statutes [that waive] sovereign immunity." Lockheed, 460 U.S. at 193-99, 103 S.Ct. 1033. Federal employees can elect "to receive immediate, fixed benefits, regardless of fault and without need for litigation [under FECAL but in return they lose the right to sue the Government." Id. at 194, 103 S.Ct. 1033 (discussing Congress' intent to create a "quid pro quo" structure similar to other worker's compensation legislation). The defendants assert that the plaintiff applied for and currently receives FECA benefits for injuries associated with the attack. Defs.' Mot. 4-5; Ex. B. To prove the plaintiffs receipt of FECA benefits, the defendants reference the plaintiffs application for benefits as well as her pay records. Id., Ex. B. Because the plaintiff has not contested these factual allegations, the court treats them as conceded. See Collett v. Socialist Peoples' Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 362 F.Supp.2d 230, 243 (D.D.C.2005) (citing Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1294 (D.C.Cir.2004)).

Receiving FECA benefits bars claims associated with the original event and subsequent negligent acts arising out of the injury. Spinelli v. Goss, 446 F.3d 159, 161 (D.C.Cir.2006) (interpreting traditional tort theory and the specific language of 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c) to conclude that the receipt of FECA benefits is "a substitute for the whole of the claim" that would have arisen from the original incident). Therefore, the plaintiffs receipt of FECA benefits precludes her from recovering any damages against the government for negligence associated with the attack, including her claims that the defendants knew of the attacker's dangerous tendencies and that the defendants failed to provide her with medical treatment. Lockheed, 460 U.S. at 193-99, 103 S.Ct. 1033 (stating that FEcA's "quid pro quo " provision allows plaintiffs to receive benefits, "but in return they lose the right to sue the Government"). Accordingly, the court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss as to those claims.

3. The Plaintiff Failed to Exhaust her Administrative Remedies as to the Remaining Claims

The plaintiff also alleges that the defendants negligently...