Curne v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin.

1

JARRELL DEANDRE CURNE, Plaintiff, v. U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 23-3789 (BAH)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

December 10, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERYL A. HOWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pro se plaintiff Jarrell Deandre Curne initiated this action on December 20, 2023, and, after amending his complaint once seeks relief from a number of both named and unnamed federal officials and entities, and nongovernmental entities including the United States, United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”), United States Attorney General Merrick Garland, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), two unknown individuals employed by the federal government (“John Does”), Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Agent Jeffrey D. Thomas and Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) Paul Becker (collectively, the “federal defendants”); U.S. Bank, National Association (“U.S. Bank”); and Stinson LLP (“Stinson”), for alleged violations of his rights connected with his receipt of a Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan, his application for forgiveness of that loan, and an ongoing criminal prosecution of plaintiff in the Western District of Missouri. See Am. Compl ECF No. 40 (docketing plaintiff's amended complaint); Pl.'s Resp. to Order of the Court (“Text of Pl.'s Am. Compl.”), ECF No. 26 (containing the updated redlined version of plaintiff's amended complaint).^[1]All defendants have now moved, in three separate motions, to dismiss the Amended Complaint. See Fed. Defs.' Mot. Dismiss & Mot. Transfer Case (“Fed. Defs.' MTD”), ECF No. 31; U.S. Bank's Mot. Dismiss Am. Compl. (“U.S. Bank's MTD”), ECF No. 45; Stinson LLP's Mot. Dismiss Am. Compl. (“Stinson LLP's MTD”), ECF No. 46. For the reasons explained below, U.S. Bank and Stinson LLP's motions are granted, and the federal defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed, except for his Bivens action against the two John Doe federal employees and his claim against the United States for unlawful disclosure of confidential tax information, which claims will be transferred to the Western District of Missouri.

I. BACKGROUND

The factual background and procedural history of this case are summarized below.

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff, a citizen of Missouri, is a music manager, executive, and recording artist who owns and operates Hustle Ova Everything Entertainment, LLC (“HOEE”). Am. Compl. at 4. In May 2020, HOEE received a PPP loan for $312,500 through U.S. Bank, based on an application signed and submitted by plaintiff. See U.S. Bank SBA Payroll Protection Loan at 3-7, ECF No. 18-1; see also Am. Compl. ¶ 24.C., 22. The PPP loan was assigned SBA loan number 5511277304. Am. Compl. ¶ 22. Plaintiff thereafter applied for the loan to be forgiven, which application was denied by SBA, on August 1, 2023, because “insufficient” documentation had been provided to determine whether the loan was eligible for forgiveness. Compl. (“First Compl.”), Ex. 3, ECF No. 1-2 at 13; Am. Compl. ¶ 8.

Plaintiff appealed the denial of forgiveness to the SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeal (“OHA”), Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 15; Fed. Defs.' MTD at 2 (citing Decl. of Shamia A. Stewart Submitted Supp. Fed. Defs.' Mot. Dismiss (“Stewart Decl.”) ¶ 5, Ex. B, ECF No. 31-2), and submitted with his appeal various business documents, Fed. Defs.' MTD at 2 (citing Stewart Decl.). The SBA then withdrew its final loan review decision to conduct further review of the loan and its eligibility. Am. Compl. ¶ 13. Shortly thereafter, on August 29, 2023, the OHA dismissed plaintiff's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the final decision had been withdrawn and the loan forgiveness decision was thus still undergoing review. First Compl., Ex. 1, ECF No. 1-2 at 8. As plaintiff and the federal defendants both acknowledge, at the time plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, a final decision on plaintiff's application for PPP loan forgiveness had yet to be made, and the loan forgiveness application was still pending. See Am. Compl. ¶ 8; Fed. Defs.' MTD at 3.

Meanwhile, on June 29, 2023, plaintiff filed a case in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“CFC”) against the United States, alleging violations of his constitutional rights by IRS Agent Jeffery Thomas, two unknown IRS agents, SBA employee Stacy Spencer, and the IRS and SBA. See Compl., Curne v. United States, 1:23-cv-1031-PSH (Fed. Cl.), ECF No. 1. The government's motion to dismiss this action, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6), see Mot. Dismiss, Curne v. United States, 1:23-cv-1031-PSH (Fed. Cl.), ECF No. 22, was granted, on February 15, 2024, in an oral opinion, with judgment entered in favor of the government on February 21, 2024, see Curne v. United States, 1:23-cv-1031-PSH (Fed. Cl.), ECF Nos. 42, 43. Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment, id., ECF No. 44, was denied on July 18, 2024, id., ECF No. 49, prompting plaintiff to file an appeal to the Federal Circuit, which appeal remains pending, see Curne v. United States, No. 24-2360 (Fed. Cir.) (opened Sept. 26, 2024).

While plaintiff's CFC complaint was pending, plaintiff was indicted, on September 6, 2023, in the Western District of Missouri on two counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and 28 counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), for alleged illegal actions in connection with the PPP loan to plaintiff's business. Indictment, United States v. Curne, 4:23-cr-205-BCW-1 (W.D. Mo.), ECF No. 1 (filed Sept. 6, 2023); see also Am. Compl. ¶ 17. A jury trial is currently scheduled in this case for April 2025. See Order, United States v. Curne, 4:23-cr-205-BCW-1 (W.D. Mo.), ECF No. 44 (filed Sept. 24, 2024).

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff initiated the instant action on December 20, 2023, naming the United States, the SBA, Attorney General Garland, the DOJ, two John Doe federal employees, Stinson LLP, U.S. Bank, the CBE Group, Inc., and Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., as defendants. See First Compl. Plaintiff's initial complaint requested injunctive relief to “stop” the ongoing criminal case against him, id. ¶ 5; an order forgiving plaintiff's first PPP loan of $312,500 and approving a “second draw” loan for an additional $312,500; and, lastly, an “order” directing defendants to “cease and desist violating [his] constitutional rights,” id. at 12.

Six months later, plaintiff sought leave to add two additional defendants: the Internal Revenue Service and Zachary D. Miller, an attorney at Burr & Forman in Nashville, Tennessee, see Pl.'s Mot. to Join Parties, ECF No. 17, and to file an amended complaint, see Pl.'s Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl, ECF No. 18. His motion to file an amended complaint was granted, without objection from defendants. Min. Order (July 17, 2024); see also U.S. Bank's Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl., ECF No. 27; Stinson LLP's Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl., ECF No. 28; Fed. Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl.

ECF No. 29.^[2] Plaintiff's Amended Complaint added two new named defendants to the case: IRS Agent Jeffrey D. Thomas, named specifically in his official capacity, and AUSA Paul Becker. See Am. Compl. at 46 (listing the defendants in the case). The Amended Complaint seeks to “enjoin” the “pending criminal prosecution” against him in the Western District of Michigan, Am. Compl. at 6, and, construed liberally, appears to raise the following claims:

• breach of contract and negligence against U.S. Bank, id. at 6, 13, 28;

• unlawful discrimination by U.S. Bank, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1691, id. at 6, 29;

• defamation by U.S. Bank and IRS Agent Jeffrey D. Thomas, id. at 30-31;

• a “Bivens Action” against Agent Thomas, id. at 34, and the two John Doe federal employees, id. at 5-6, 34;

• unlawful disclosure of plaintiff's tax information by Agent Thomas, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6103, id. at 35;

• Federal Torts Claims Act (“FTCA”) and Taxpayer Bill of Rights violations by Agent Thomas, id. at 37-40;

• unlawful carrying of a firearm, in violation of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (“LEOSA”) by Agent Thomas, id. at 40-41;

• negligent misrepresentation by Stinson LLP, id. at 43-45;^[3]and

• a claim, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, id. at 1, 5, 42, although the basis and targeted defendants for this claim is unclear.

The federal defendants seek dismissal of the Amended Complaint on multiple grounds, Fed. Defs.' MTD, and both defendants U.S. Bank and Stinson LLP seek dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and Stinson also contends the Amended Complaint fails to plead the allegation of negligent misrepresentation with sufficient particularity, Rule 9(b), see Stinson LLP's MTD.^[4]These three motions are ripe for consideration. See Pl.'s Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss or Transfer (“Pl.'s Opp'n”), ECF No. 52; Stinson LLP's Reply Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 53; U.S. Bank's Reply Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 54.

II. DISCUSSION

Each of plaintiff's claims are discussed below.

A. Claims Against Federal Defendants

As a threshold matter, throughout the Amended Complaint, plaintiff attacks the criminal indictment against him in the Western District of Missouri as inaccurate and wrongful, see e.g., Am. Compl. at 5-6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 20-21, 23, 34, and as the basis for asking this Court to “enjoin” this ongoing criminal case, id. at 6; see also Pl.'s Opp'n ¶ 35 (“Due to the loan no longer being denied, I am asking this court to order the federal government to dismiss the indictment until a decision has been made.”). Clear binding precedent,...