Barber v. Social Security Administration et al
Filing
9
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING the Defendant's 5 Motion to Dismiss. This action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Refile Complaint 7 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 10/11/2013. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
SHARON E. BARBER,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:13-cv-1980-WSD
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION and MR.
JAMES,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [5]. Also
before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Refile Complaint [7].
I.
BACKGROUND
On December 19, 2012, Plaintiff Sharon E. Barber (“Plaintiff”), proceeding
pro se, filed this action in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia against the
Social Security Administration (“SSA”) and a Veterans Administration
investigator identified only as “Mr. James” (collectively, “Defendants”).
Plaintiff’s Complaint [1-1] is largely incomprehensible but appears to assert that
SSA and Mr. James engaged in a “conspiracy” to defraud Plaintiff and that
Defendants caused Plaintiff “personal injury.”
SSA is a United States agency, and Mr. James is an officer of a United
States agency. On that basis, on June 13, 2013, Defendants removed this action to
this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which allows the removal from state
to federal court of any action against a United States agency and its officers.
On July 15, 2013, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on the grounds
that (i) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to assert
her claims in the manner prescribed in the Federal Tort Claims Act, and
(ii) Defendants were not properly served with process.1
II.
DISCUSSION
Sovereign immunity shields the federal government from claims asserted
against it, and, in the absence of a waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity,
federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims asserted against the
federal government. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). A plaintiff
has the burden of demonstrating that the federal government has waived its
sovereign immunity with regard to the claims asserted against the government.
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the federal government waives its sovereign
1
On July 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Refile Complaint seeking leave to
re-file her Complaint to allow Plaintiff to perfect service on Defendants. Because
the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims
based on Defendants’ sovereign immunity, the Motion to Refile Complaint is
required to be denied as moot.
2
immunity only if certain procedures are followed by the plaintiff, including that the
plaintiff exhaust administrative remedies by presenting his claim, before filing suit,
to the appropriate government agency. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); see also Turner
ex rel. Turner v. United States, 514 F.3d 1194, 1200 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that
courts lack jurisdiction over tort claims against the United States unless the
procedures set forth in the Federal Tort Claims Act are followed).
There is no dispute here that, before filing this action, Plaintiff failed to
present the claims asserted in her Complaint to SSA, or any other federal agency,
in conformity with the Federal Tort Claims Act. This failure to exhaust
administrative remedies deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s claims, and this action is required to be dismissed.2 See Turner, 514
F.3d at 1200.
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [5] is
GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a suit against the United States is the
exclusive remedy for persons with claims for damages arising from common law
torts resulting from the actions of federal employees taken within the scope of their
office or employment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). Plaintiff’s individual claims
against Mr. James are thus required to be dismissed.
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Refile Complaint
[7] is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED this 11th day of October, 2013.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?