Green v. Gober et al

Filing 82

ORDER granting 63 Motion to Dismiss. All FTCA claims are dismissed with prejudice for want of jurisdiction. The Bivens claim against Colvin is dismissed without prejudice. 69 Motion to strike is denied as moot. 76 Motion is granted in part and denied in part. 71 Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/3/2014. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
JAMES GREEN,
ADC # 113001

v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 5:12-cv-406-DPM

PAUL D. SELBY, Attorney, Monticello
Regional OCSE; PARKER HOUSER,
Claims Representative, Social Security;
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration; T ALIA LAMBERT,
Investigator, Monticello Office of Child
Support Enforcement; and UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Several motions need deciding.
1. Green's FTCA claim against Houser, Colvin, and the United States
is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); Ryan v. United States,
534 F.3d 828,831 (8th Cir. 2008)(per curiam). He did not, he acknowledges, file
an administrative claim with the Social Security Administration. NQ 72 at 7-8.
His inquiry letters do not suffice. Green reasonably should have known
about the alleged injury no later than October 2009, when his benefits were
awarded and reduced by the June 2009 garnishment. NQ 2 at 32; NQ 79-2 at
1-2; NQ 81 at 12. Any administrative claim now would be untimely. Flores v.

United States, 689 F.3d 894, 901 (8th Cir. 2012). So this dismissal is with
prejudice.
2. On further screening, the Court agrees that Green has no Bivens claim
against Secretary Colvin. No respondeat superior liability exists simply
because Colvin is the boss. Buford v. Runyon, 160 F.3d 1199, 1203 (8th Cir.
1998).

Green's allegation that Colvin's predecessor failed to stop the

garnishment, NQ 2 at 8, is insufficient to establish any liability.
3. If Defendants have not provided Green a copy of his deposition, they
should do so now. Defendants' objections to Green's discovery based on
multi-party questions are overruled. Supplemental answers due by 27 June
2014.

All Defendants' other objections are sustained.

Green shall not

propound any further written discovery without getting prior approval from
the Court. No more multi-part questions will be allowed. Any additional
proposed discovery should be limited and focused.
4. Green's fifth motion for counsel is denied for the reasons previously
stated. Green is ably representing himself on the relatively straightforward
issues presented. Ste·uens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998).

-2-

* * *
Motion to dismiss, N2 63, granted. All FTCA claims are dismissed with
prejudice. The Bivens claim against Colvin is dismissed without prejudice.
Motion to strike, N!! 69, denied as moot. Motion about more interrogatories
and other discovery issues, N!! 76, granted in part and denied in part. Motion
for appointed counsel, N!! 71, denied.
So Ordered.

D.P. IYiarshall Jr. v
United States District Judge

3

-3-