O'Neil v. United States of America et al

Filing 153

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction and Dismisses the case with prejudice; the Clerk is directed to remove this action from the docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/30/2011. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort, attys; any unrepresented party) (cds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION

CHARLES EDWARD O’NEIL,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:07-cv-00358

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND DISMISSAL ORDER
The Court raises, sua sponte, the issue of its own jurisdiction. Upon examination of the
pleadings, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction, and for the reasons stated herein, DISMISSES
the case with prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
The full factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the proposed findings and
recommendation (PF&R). (Docket 148.) Plaintiff, an inmate at FCI Beckley, West Virginia,
initiated this action on June 4, 2007. (Docket 4). The action was eventually appealed to the Fourth
Circuit where the case was vacated and remanded in part and affirmed in part. (Docket 104.)
Specifically, the Fourth Circuit affirmed this Court’s dismissal of the Bivens claim against
Defendant Rasheed and affirmed this Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s FTCA claim. (Id. at 9.)
However, the Fourth Circuit vacated this Court’s order dismissing the Bivens claims against the
Federal Defendants. (Id. at 11.) The Court was instructed to appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff

and to permit discovery on the issue of Plaintiff’s mental status during the applicable limitations
periods.1
On August 2, 2011, Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R recommending that this
Court deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss and refer this matter back to the him for further
proceedings. (Docket 148.) Objections to the PF&R in this case were due on August 19, 2011;
Defendants filed objections on August 12, 2011, and Plaintiff filed a response on August 25, 2011.
On September 28, 2011, Defendants filed a Notice of Additional Authority in Support of Renewed
Motion to dismiss, (Docket 152), citing the Court’s recent opinion in Sanchez v. Felts, Civil Action
No. 5:07-cv-355 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 23, 2011).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district courts of the United States are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). They possess only the
jurisdiction authorized them by the United States Constitution and by federal statute. Bowles v.
Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (“Within constitutional bounds, Congress decides what cases the
federal courts have jurisdiction to consider”); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994). Thus, when a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an action, the
action must be dismissed. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506-07 (2006). “The existence
of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue” which should be addressed before the Court
reaches the merits of a case. Jones v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 192 F.3d 417, 422 (4th Cir. 1999)
(a federal court is obligated to dismiss a case if it appears the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction).

1

The remaining actions were two Bivens claims for failure to provide follow-up treatment.
2

III. DISCUSSION
Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants addressed in their objections the Court’s ability to continue
to hear Plaintiff’s Bivens claims in light of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s FTCA claims. When a
judgment in an FTCA action has been entered, any action involving the same subject matter against
the federal employee whose act or omission gave rise to the claim is barred.2 Accordingly, when
the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s FTCA claim, the Court no longer had jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s
Bivens claims. Subsequently, the Fourth Circuit affirmed this Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s FTCA
claim, and the Court neglected to raise the jurisdiction issue at that time. However, the Court now,
sua sponte, raises the issue. Accordingly, Plaintiff is precluded from raising claims regarding his
medical care because his FTCA claims based upon the same subject were dismissed.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court FINDS that it lacks jurisdiction and DISMISSES
the case with prejudice. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
VanDervort, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

September 30, 2011

The Court’s full analysis of this issue can be found in the Sanchez opinion.
3