Williams v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. DC 83-13-WK-O.,DC 83-13-WK-O. |
| Citation | 565 F. Supp. 59 |
| Parties | Robert Stanley WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
Richard Phillips, Batesville, Miss., for plaintiff.
Patricia D. Rogers, Asst. U.S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for defendant.
In this Federal Tort Claims Act action, plaintiff, Robert Stanley Williams, sues the United States of America for trespass and invasion of privacy as a result of actions of employees of the United States in breaking into plaintiff's desk and removing his personal papers and belongings. The court has before it the United States' motion to dismiss or in the alternative, to hold in abeyance.
Plaintiff alleges that on March 26, 1981, while he was temporarily detailed with the United States Corps of Engineers to Vicksburg, Mississippi, Gary Smythe and David Shockey, upon consultation with and the cooperation of Carl Phillips and Suzanne Hale, all corps employees, acting within the scope of their employment and with consent of the United States, "did unlawfully and without warrant break and enter" the locked drawer of plaintiff's desk in his office at the Sardis Lake Field Office. Upon opening the locked drawer, Smythe and Shockey allegedly seized and carried away all of plaintiff's personal papers and belongings, including $1,200.00 in cash. These belongings were not returned to plaintiff until March 31, 1981. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit for unlawful trespass and invasion of plaintiff's reasonable rights of privacy which allegedly resulted in severe mental and emotional distress.
Defendant argues this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action because plaintiff's exclusive remedy for any alleged injuries caused by defendant while plaintiff was employed by defendant is the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. Section 8116(c) states:
(c) The liability of the United States or an instrumentality thereof under this subchapter or any extension thereof with respect to the injury or death of an employee is exclusive and instead of all other liability of the United States or the instrumentality to the employee, his legal representative, spouse, dependents, next of kin, and any other person otherwise entitled to recover damages from the United States or the instrumentality because of the injury or death in a direct judicial proceeding, in a civil action, or in admiralty, or by an administrative or judicial proceeding under a workmen's compensation statute or under a Federal tort liability statute. However, this subsection does not apply to a master or member of a crew of a vessel.
Id. As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Avasthi v. United States, 608 F.2d 1059 (5 Cir.1979):
The term "injury", to which the FECA applies, is specifically defined in the Act as including "in addition to injury by accident, a disease proximately caused by the employment, and damage to or destruction of medical braces, artificial limbs, and other prosthetic devices ...." 5 U.S.C. § 8101(5). Because of this definition, the court in Sullivan v. United States, 428 F.Supp. 79 (E.D.Wis.1977), concluded that:
The type injuries covered in 5 U.S.C. § 8101(5) include injury by accident or disease; it does not appear to include such claims as are presented here for discrimination, mental distress, or loss of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eure v. US Postal Service
...Other cases have followed similar procedural courses: Dunn v. United States, 516 F.Supp. 1373 (E.D.Pa.1981); Williams v. United States, 565 F.Supp. 59 (N.D.Miss. 1983); Luczyszyn v. General Services Administration, 569 F.Supp. 306 (E.D.Pa. 1983) (citing, Bailey, supra); Joyce v. United Stat......
-
Siebert v. Conservative Party of New York State
... ... Maltese and James E. O'Doherty, Defendants ... No. 82 Civ. 7419 (HFW) ... United States District Court, S.D. New York ... June 6, 1983. Obermaier, Morvillo & ... by Robert G. Morvillo, New York City, for plaintiffs ... Baker, Nelson & Williams by John P. Dellera, New York City, for defendants ... 565 F. Supp. 57 MEMORANDUM ... ...
-
Gergick v. Austin, 89-0838-CV-W-6.
...courts hold that "injury" includes mental distress. Burke v. United States, 644 F.Supp. 566, 568 (E.D.La.1986); Williams v. United States, 565 F.Supp. 59 (N.D.Miss.1983). This court is swayed by the more persuasive authority found in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits that FECA does not encompass......
-
Burke v. United States
...claims as are presented here for discrimination, mental distress, or loss of employment." Id. at 81. However, in Williams v. United States, 565 F.Supp. 59 (N.D.Miss.1983), where it was alleged that the employee suffered from intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court refused to......