BASS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE et al
Filing
30
OPINION and ORDER DISMISSING CASE; w/prejudice. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 9/8/11. (sr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CLOSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RONALD BASS,
Civil Action No.:11-1071 (JLL)
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
LINARES, District Judge
Pro se Plaintiff Ronald Bass commenced the instant action on February 24, 2011 against
Defendants United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department
of Justice, Inspector General Offices, Social Security Administration, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Immigration and Naturalization Service (collectively, the “Agency Defendants”)
and the State of New Jersey seeking damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28
U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2401(b), 2671-80. As a procedural matter, the Department of Health and
Human Services received Plaintiff’s administrative complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act
on August 13, 2010. On August 23, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services denied
the claim for failure to specify negligent actions by the agency’s employees. Plaintiff’s request
for reconsideration was also denied by letter dated October 6, 2010. There is no indication that
Plaintiff presented administrative claims to the other Agency Defendants.
Although Plaintiff’s recitation of the facts is somewhat muddled, Plaintiff appears to
allege that he was previously the subject of criminal investigations by the State and federal
governments. Plaintiff alleges that the charges brought against him were false and were
ultimately dismissed. While Plaintiff was jailed, he contends that he was injected with a harmful
substance, causing him injuries. Plaintiff alleges that he was injured on State and/or federal
government property on or about February 1991, April 5, 1991, and November 2002. Plaintiff
believes that certain unspecified defendants had property and casualty insurance, and therefore he
is a third party beneficiary entitled to insurance payments. He also appears to seek a court order
directing the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General to investigate unspecified civil
rights violations and misconduct by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug
Enforcement Administration.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a complaint must contain a short plain statement of the
grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction and a plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief. From the pleading, the Court must be able to draw a reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50
(20092; Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n.3 (2007). Where the pleaded facts
do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the pleader is not
entitled to relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50.
Upon review of Plaintiff’s complaint, it is clear that Plaintiff has failed to provide any
plausible legal theory on which he may bring claims. Rather, Plaintiff’s factual allegations are
entirely unclear, and in part, incredible. For example, Plaintiff avers that in 2003 an Essex
County Superior Court Judge stated on the record that then President George W. Bush was
seeking Plaintiff’s conviction. He continues that the Essex County Judge and “Bob Dole
committed fraud on the Court under the collusion of [the Judge] and Bob Dole.” Bass further
alleges that the State and federal governments negligently hired employees who intentionally,
willfully, and maliciously injured Plaintiff by omitting drug enforcement identification, and
manufacturing evidence for grand jury shopping. Plaintiff does not state when this occurred,
which drug enforcement identification plaintiff is referencing, why it should have been included
in what, where and by whom.
Bass also contends that the “defendants in their individual official capacity” colluded to
stalk and falsely imprison Plaintiff. These unnamed employees supposedly committed assault,
battery, and medical malpractice by injecting Bass with a foreign substance while he was in
various county jails. Plaintiff omits the names, positions, and supervisory agencies of the
supposed wrongdoers, along with the location and dates of the incidents. In sum, Plaintiff’s
complaint is mere conjecture lacking sufficient plausible factual allegations to survive
Defendants’ Rule 8 challenge.
Even if Plaintiff’s complaint could survive a Rule 8 screening, Plaintiff has failed to
establish that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. The United States of
America, as a sovereign, and its agencies are immune from suit unless they consent to be sued.
United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). The FTCA — under which Plaintiff brings
suit — constitutes a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Livera v. First National State Bank
of New Jersey, 879 F.2d 1186, 1194 (3d Cir. 1989). Under the Act, the Government has
consented to be sued for “negligent or wrongful acts or omissions” of its employees acting within
the scope of their employment “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person,
would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission
occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The FTCA does not generally permit suit against the
government for intentional torts. 28 U.S.C. § 2680. Additionally, under the statute, federal
agencies may not be named as Defendants.
More significantly, a Plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a
complaint in district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2675. That claim must be presented to the appropriate
federal agency within two years after it accrued. Any claim presented after the two year period
will not satisfy the jurisdictional exhaustion requirement. Kieffer v. Vilk, 8 F. Supp. 387, 395-96
(D.N.J. 1998).
In this case, all the Agency Defendants must be dismissed because federal agencies are
immune from suit. Further, even without immunity, Plaintiff’s claims appear to be time-barred
because the injuries he alleges occurred in 1991, 2002, and 2005 respectively. Thus, the latest he
could have filed an administrative claim would have been in 2007. Not withstanding his
administrative claim against the Department of Health and Human Services, Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that he exhausted his administrative remedies as to the other Agency Defendants.
Consequently, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review this matter as it pertains to
the Agency Defendants.
Similarly, Plaintiff cannot brings claims against the State of New Jersey because they are
barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity bars States from being sued
without their consent. Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996). Sovereignty applies to
both state law claims and federal civil rights claims. Thus, as Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
the State has waived its sovereign immunity, his claim against the State of New Jersey must also
be dismissed. For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS on this 8th day of September, 2011
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close the file in this matter.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Jose L. Linares
JOSE L. LINARES
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?