Farmer et al v. Louisiana Electronic and Financial Crimes Task Force et al

Filing 28

ORDER AND REASONS granting 19 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Party Louisiana Electronic and Financial Crimes Task Force and United States of America dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon on 10/24/11. (ecm, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BILLY RAY FARMER III, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 10-2971

LOUISIANA ELECTRONIC AND
FINANCIAL CRIMES TASK FORCE,
ET AL.

SECTION: "S" (3)

ORDER AND REASONS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction filed by defendant the United States of America, through the Louisiana Electronic and
Financial Crimes Task Force (Doc. #19), is GRANTED, and plaintiff’s claims against it are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, Billy Ray Farmer III and Diana Farmer, filed this action in the Twenty First
Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa, State of Louisiana against the Louisiana Electronic
and Financial Crimes Task Force (the “Task Force”); Thomas H. Young, Jr., a former deputy of the
St. John the Baptist Parish Sheriff’s Office; Toby Aguillard, a deputy of the Tangipahoa Parish
Sheriff’s Office; and, Marcus McMillan, a deputy of the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office,
alleging that the defendants committed various torts against them in connection with a search of
Diana Farmer’s home and the arrest of Billy Ray Farmer III. The Task Force is a tasks force
comprised of federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel that was established by the United

States Secret Service, a federal law-enforcement agency that is a component of the Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”), as part of the Patriot Act of 2001.
On September 9, 2010, the United States removed this action to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, which permits removal to federal
court of civil actions filed in state court against the United States or any agency or officer thereof.
In its notice of removal, the United States avers that the Task Force, the Secret Service, and DHS
are agencies of the United States.
On September 30, 2011, the United States filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction arguing that it is the proper defendant, that plaintiffs failed to exhaust their
administrative remedies regarding their tort claims, and that a plaintiff cannot bring constitutional
tort claims against the United States.
ANALYSIS
A.

Legal Standard
“Motions filed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to

challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to hear a case.” Ramming v. United
States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001). “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be found in any
one of three instances: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts
evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s
resolution of disputed facts.” Id. In a 12(b)(1) motion, the party asserting jurisdiction bears the
burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exists. Id.

2

B.

Federal Tort Claims Act
“It is elementary that the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suits save as it

consents to be sued . . . and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s
jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” Broussard v. United States, 989 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir. 1993)
(internal quotation and citation omitted). The United States has statutorily consented to suits
regarding common law torts pursuant to the terms of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). Id.
The FTCA contains a limited waiver of the United State’s sovereign immunity, allowing a plaintiff
to sue the United States for damages in compensation for injuries resulting from certain torts of
employees of the government acting within the scope of their employment. Robb v. United States,
80 F.3d 884, 887 (4th Cir. 1996); 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). “It is beyond dispute that the United States,
and not the responsible agency or employee, is the proper part defendant” in a FTCA suit. Galvin
v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 860 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir. 1988). Further, the United
States’ FTCA waiver of sovereign immunity does not include federal constitutional torts. Sampson
v. United States, 73 Fed. Appx. 48, 49 (5th Cir. 2003). Under the FTCA, plaintiffs asserting a
common law tort claim against the United States must first file an administrative claim, and either
obtain a written denial of the claim from the agency or wait six months until after the filing of the
administrative claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq..
In this case, plaintiffs attempt to assert common law torts and constitutional torts against the
Task Force. Because the Task Force was established by the United States Secret Service as a part
of the Patriot Act of 2001, it is part of the DHS, a federal agency. Therefore, under the FTCA, the
United States is the proper defendant. The United States’ limited waiver of sovereign immunity
3

under the FTCA does not encompass constitutional claims, and requires plaintiffs to exhaust
administrative remedies regarding their common law torts prior to filing suit. Plaintiffs have not
filed an administrative claim with the appropriate agency. Thus, plaintiffs’ claims against the United
States, through the Louisiana Electronic and Financial Crimes Task Force, for common law torts and
constitutional torts must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction filed by defendant the United States of America, through the Louisiana Electronic and
Financial Crimes Task Force (Doc. #19), is GRANTED, and plaintiff’s claims against it are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of October, 2011.

____________________________________
MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4