Danila v Khanna

Filing 10

ORDER granting Defendant's 8 Motion to Dismiss. This matter is now closed. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM) cc: plaintiff via first class mail

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

VIRGIL DANILA,
Plaintiff,

9
10

)
) CASE NO. C18-0902RSM
)
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
) DISMISS
)
)
)
)
)

v.

11

RAMAN KHANNA,
12

Defendant.

13
14

I.

15

INTRODUCTION

16

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. #8.

17

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice,

18

because Defendant has sovereign immunity, Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his
19
20

administrative remedies, and Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id.

21

Plaintiff opposes the motion. Dkt. #9. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s claim will be

22

dismissed.

23

II.

BACKGROUND

24

On May 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the small claims division of the King
25
26

County District Court, seeking $1000 in damaged for the destruction of his documents. Dkt. #1-

27

3. The complaint arises out of an October 13, 2017, meeting between Plaintiff and Defendant.

28

Id. Defendant Khanna is the Constituent Services and Outreach Coordinator for Congresswoman
ORDER
PAGE - 1

1

Pramila Jayapal, U.S. Representative for the seventh congressional district of Washington. Dkt.

2

#1 at ¶ 2. In that capacity, Mr. Khanna routinely interacts with constituents as Congresswoman

3

Jayapal’s representative. Id. at ¶ 3. According to Plaintiff, he sought assistance from the

4

Congresswoman and met with Mr. Khanna “to present the case of two U.S. Postal workers in

5

Seattle . . . who [allegedly] committed illegal acts against [him].” Dkt. #1-3 at 2. According to
6
7

Plaintiff, those postal workers refused to deliver his passport and other documents in 2007 and

8

2008. Id. Plaintiff asserts that he sought Mr. Khanna’s assistance by asking him to scan

9

documents related to his allegations and deliver them to the Post Office. Dkts. #1-3 and #9. He

10

asserts that he provided Defendant with three envelopes of original documents and other evidence

11

that were susbsequently destroyed instead of being returned to him. Id. Plaintiff alleges that
12
13

“Mr. Raman [Khanna] deliberately destroyed all of the documents.” Dkt. #1-3. He seeks

14

$1,000.00 in damages for the emotional distress he suffered upon learning his documents had

15

been shredded.

16

On June 19, 2018, Defendant removed the complaint to the United States District Court
17
18

for the Western District of Washington. Dkt. #1. The instant motion followed.
III.

19
20
21

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standards
1. Motions for Lack of Jurisdiction under 12(b)(1)

22

Federal courts are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and may only hear cases authorized by
23
24

the Constitution or a statutory grant. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S.

25

375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). The burden of establishing subject-matter

26

jurisdiction rests upon the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction. Id. Once it is determined

27

that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court has no choice but to dismiss the

28

ORDER
PAGE - 2

1

suit. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1097 (2006);

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter

3

jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

4

2. Motion to Dismiss under 12(b)(6)

5

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6
7

12(b)(6), all allegations of material fact must be accepted as true and construed in the light most

8

favorable to the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir.

9

1996). However, the court is not required to accept as true a “legal conclusion couched as a

10

factual allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.

11

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The Complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter,
12
13

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678. This

14

requirement is met when the plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

15

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Absent facial

16

plausibility, Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
17
18

B. Jurisdiction

19

The Court first addresses Defendant’s argument that this Court lacks subject matter

20

jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claim because it is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

21

Dkt. #8 at 3-6.

Unless the government waives its immunity, claims for monetary damages

22

against the federal government are barred by sovereign immunity. United States v. Mitchell, 445
23
24

U.S. 535, 538, 100 S. Ct. 1349, 63 L. Ed. 2d 607 (1980). Suits against government officials in

25

their official capacity are suits against the government, and are therefore barred by sovereign

26

immunity. Balser v. Dept. of Justice, Office of U.S. Tr., 327 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003).

27

However, in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388,

28

ORDER
PAGE - 3

1

91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971), the Supreme Court recognized the right to collect

2

monetary damages for constitutional violations perpetrated by government officials, where the

3

official was sued in his or her individual, rather than official, capacity. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at

4

390-91; see also Balser, 327 F.3d at 907-09 (clarifying the ‘individual capacity’ component).

5

Although not clear in his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts in response to the instant motion
6
7

that he is suing Defendant in his individual capacity, rather than in his official capacity, because

8

he acted outside the scope of his employment in destroying Plaintiff’s documents. Dkt. #9 at 2.

9

However, the basis of a Bivens action is some illegal or inappropriate conduct on the part of a

10

federal official or agent that violates a clearly established constitutional right. See Davis v.

11

Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 241-44, 60 L. Ed. 2d 846, 99 S. Ct. 2264 (1979). Plaintiff fails to allege
12
13

any constitutional violation on the part of Defendant, and the other actions identified by Plainitff

14

were taken within Defendant’s official capacity as the Constituent Services and Outreach

15

Coordinator for Congresswoman Jayapal. See Dkt. #1-3.

16

Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff alleges any claim based on Defendant’s actions
17
18

within his official capacity, the claim is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. With

19

respect to any action taken by Defendant in his individual capacity, Plaintiff fails to state any

20

legal authority, constitutional or otherwise, providing a basis for his claim. For those reasons,

21

the Complaint must be dismissed.

22

Based on this decision, the Court need not address Defendant’s alternate bases for
23
24
25
26
27

dismissal of the claim, or Plaintiff’s other arguments in response to the motion.
C. Leave to Amend
Ordinarily, leave to amend a complaint should be freely given following an order of
dismissal, “unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured

28

ORDER
PAGE - 4

1

by amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); see also DeSoto v. Yellow

2

Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A district court does not err in denying

3

leave to amend where the amendment would be futile.” (citing Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912

4

F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990)). The Court declines to grant such leave in this case. The Court

5

concludes that granting leave to amend the dismissed claims would be futile given the Court’s
6
7

lack of jurisdiction over any claim against Defendant in his official capacity, and given that the

8

Court is unaware of any constitutional or other legal violation that may be alleged for the

9

destruction of Plaintiff’s documents under the circumstances of this matter.

10

IV.

CONCLUSION

11

Having reviewed Defendant’s motion, the response thereto, and the remainder of the
12
13

record, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #8) is GRANTED

14

and this matter is now CLOSED.

15

DATED this 27th day of July 2018.

16

A

17
18

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 5