Scrase v. Dickinson et al
Filing
34
ORDER Granting 24 Motion to Dismiss. The Court orders the Clerk of Court to close this case. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 8/23/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DXS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
***
11
12
13
14
15
JUDITH SCRASE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WILLIAM K. DICKINSON,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)
Case No.: 2:09-cv-02398-RLH-GWF
ORDER
(Motion to Dismiss–#24)
16
17
Before the Court is Defendant William K. Dickinson’s Motion to Dismiss (#24,
18
filed Feb. 7, 2011) for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court
19
has also considered Plaintiff Judith Scrase’s Opposition (#26, filed Feb. 22, 2011), and
20
Dickinson’s Reply (#28, filed Mar. 4, 2011).
21
22
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Scrase’s eviction from a mobile home space at the Lake
23
Mead RV Village. The RV Village is operated by a private contractor hired by the United States
24
government. Dickinson is the superintendent of the RV Village. Scrase alleges that Dickinson
25
prevented her from appealing her eviction and from selling her mobile home, which was
26
purportedly worth $24,000. Instead, Scrase claims, Dickinson had her mobile home dismantled
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
1
1
and moved to the “graveyard,” presumably a scrap heap. Scrase filed suit in December 2009
2
asserting a claim under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment as well as two state common
3
law tort claims. Dickinson has now asked the Court to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim
4
and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants
5
Dickinson’s motion.
6
7
DISCUSSION
I.
Motion to Dismiss Legal Standard
8
A court may dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which
9
relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A properly pled complaint must provide “a short
10
and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
11
While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands “more than labels and
12
conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
13
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “Factual allegations must be enough to rise above the speculative
14
level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
15
sufficient factual matter to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at
16
1949 (internal citation omitted).
17
II.
18
19
Analysis
a.
Scrase’s Claim under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment
Scrase alleges in Count I of her complaint that Dickinson, a federal officer, violated
20
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when he refused to allow her to appeal her eviction
21
and sell her mobile home, which she claims is worth $24,000. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed.
22
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971), the Supreme Court “recognized for the first time an
23
implied private action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a citizen’s
24
constitutional rights.” Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 66 (2001). However,
25
the Supreme Court has limited the application of Bivens to the Fourth Amendment, Bivens, 403
26
U.S. at 397, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228,
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
2
1
243–44 (1979), and the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment,
2
Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18–19 (1980). The Supreme Court has not extended Bivens to the
3
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. And because there is an alternative, equally effective
4
remedy available for alleged Takings Clause violations—the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491—this
5
Court recognizes, as other courts have,1 that there is no implied private right of action under
6
Bivens. Malesko, 534 U.S. at 70 (Bivens properly extended where Plaintiff lacked an alternative
7
remedy for relief). Therefore, Scrase has failed to state a claim under Count I of her complaint.
8
However, even if Scrase did properly state a claim under Count I, the claim still
9
fails because it is time-barred. The appropriate statute of limitations for Bivens claims is the forum
10
state’s statute of limitations for personal injuries. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985);
11
Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409–10 (9th Cir. 1991). Nevada’s statute of limitations for
12
personal injuries is NRS 11.190(4)(e), Perez v. Seevers, 869 F.2d 425, 426 (9th Cir. 1989), which
13
establishes a two-year limitations period. Scrase commenced this lawsuit on December 21, 2009,
14
alleging Dickinson violated her rights in December 2006 and January 2007—more than two years
15
earlier. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses Scrase’s Takings Clause claim
16
(Count I of her complaint).
17
b.
18
Scrase’s State Tort Claims
Scrase also asserts two state common law tort claims against Dickinson in Counts II
19
and III of her complaint: interference with prospective business advantage and intentional
20
infliction of emotional distress. Dickinson argues that the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.§§
21
1346(b), 2671–2680 (“FTCA”) dictates that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these
22
claims. The FTCA provides immunity to federal employees for torts committed during the scope
23
of their employment. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). In such case, a plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is an
24
action under the FTCA against the United States. U.S. v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160, 163, 166 (1991).
25
1
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
See Reunion, Inc. v. F.A.A., No. 3:09CV269TSL-FKB, 2010 WL 1329046, at *7 (S.D. Miss. March
30, 2010); Anoushiravani v. Fishel, NO. CV 04-212-MO, 2004 WL 1630240, *9 (D. Or. July 19, 2004).
3
1
However, it is only “[u]pon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was
2
acting within the scope of his office or employment” that “the United States shall be substituted as
3
the party defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1). Thus, an action against the United States is the
4
exclusive remedy for torts committed by federal employees only after the Attorney General has
5
certified that the employee was acting with the scope of his employment.
6
The Attorney General has not filed with the Court a certification that Dickinson
7
was acting within the scope of his employment. Therefore, the FTCA is not applicable and the
8
Court has jurisdiction to hear Scrase’s claims as state common law tort claims under its
9
supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c). However, NRS 11.190(4)(e) is the statute of
10
limitations that governs tort claims in Nevada and, as discussed above, it establishes a two-year
11
limitations period. The Court therefore dismisses Scrase’s common law tort claims (Counts II and
12
III of her complaint) because they are also time-barred under NRS 11.190(4)(e).
13
CONCLUSION
14
Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,
15
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Dickinson’s Motion to Dismiss (#24) is
16
GRANTED.
17
The Court orders the Clerk of Court to close this case.
18
Dated: August 23, 2011
19
____________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
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?