JOHNSON v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN ADMIN MEDICAL CENTER, No. 1:2023cv00780 - Document 9 (D.D.C. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/10/23. (psu2)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
JOHNSON v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN ADMIN MEDICAL CENTER Doc. 9 Case 1:23-cv-00780-RC Document 9 Filed 10/10/23 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ___________________________________ ) BELINDA G. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN ) ADMIN MEDICAL CTR, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-0780 (RC) MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 14, 2023, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (ECF No. 7) under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On August 15, 2023, the Court issued an Order (ECF No. 8) advising this pro se plaintiff of her obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules of this Court. The Order set September 15, 2023, as the deadline for plaintiff’s opposition or other response to the motion and warned that the Court would resolve the motion without the benefit of plaintiff’s position if she failed to respond timely. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response or requested more time to do so. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:23-cv-00780-RC Document 9 Filed 10/10/23 Page 2 of 3 Further, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Although a pro se complaint is “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), it “must plead ‘factual matter’ that permits the court to infer ‘more than the mere possibility of misconduct,’” Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681-82 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79). As drafted, the complaint, which is vague, conclusory, and partially illegible, fails to meet these goals. Mere allegations that law enforcement officers at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center detained plaintiff for approximately 33 minutes on March 23, 2023, issued her a citation, and demanded that she sign the citation, does not state a plausible legal claim. If the complaint were construed as a tort claim against a federal government agency for monetary damages, it would proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-80. The FTCA claim fails for two reasons. First, a plaintiff cannot pursue an FTCA claim against the United States unless she first has presented her claim to the appropriate federal agency and the agency has denied that claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 111 (1993). This exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional, and absent any showing by plaintiff that she had exhausted her administrative remedies, the Court lacks jurisdiction. See Abdurrahman v. Engstrom, 168 F. App’x 445 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Second, while the FTCA is one example of an express waiver of the federal 2 Case 1:23-cv-00780-RC Document 9 Filed 10/10/23 Page 3 of 3 government’s sovereign immunity, it does not expose the United States to liability for the commission of all torts, see, e.g., Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 6 (1962). By alleging there as “no notification as to why [her] freedom” was restricted, Compl. at 1, the Court understands plaintiff to raise a claim under the Fourth or Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and “the United States simply has not rendered itself liable under [the FTCA] for constitutional tort claims,” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 478 (1994). An Order is issued separately. DATE: October 10, 2023 /s/ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
