Hamilton v. Stevens

JAN B. HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. MARCUS STEVENS, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-1158 (CKK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

March 5, 2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Jan Hamilton ("Hamilton") filed this civil action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on September 28, 2017 and amended her complaint on April 17, 2018. The operative pleading is titled:

Amended COMPLAINT OF NEGLECT, ABUSE & TORTURE IN DISALLOWING DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION FOR ELDERLY DISABLED, LESBIAN, RESULTING IN EXPLOITATION, EXTORTION, DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER FOR RECOVERY OF LOSSES AND DAMAGES

(Notice of Removal of Civil Action, Ex. A ("Am. Compl.") at 1 (page numbers designated by Hamilton) (emphasis in original)). Following removal of this action on May 17, 2018, it has come before the Court on defendants' motions to dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants their motions and dismisses the complaint and this civil action with prejudice.¹

I. BACKGROUND

Hamilton returned to the District of Columbia after having resided for some time in Aspen, Colorado. (See Am. Compl. at 2-3.) She sought membership in Christ Church, Georgetown ("Christ Church"), of which Father Timothy Cole ("Cole") is the Rector. (See id. at 4.) Hamilton has alleged the following: (1) twice, on October 23, 2016, and November 13, 2016, she was assaulted physically by Assistant Rectors Kristin Lawley and Elizabeth Keeling with the support of Senior Warden Harry Volz; (2) she was denied membership in Christ Church; and (3) she was presented with a barring notice on November 13, 2016. (See generally id. at 4-6; see also Mem. of Law in Support of Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s Am. Compl. ("Church Defs.' Mem."), Ex. 1 at 24 (Barring Notice).) According to Hamilton, Cole and the other Church Defendants defamed her, (see Am. Compl. at 4-5,) negligently caused her physical injury, (see id. at 5-8,) discriminated against her on the bases of her religion, sex, age, marital status, sexual orientation, and disability, (see generally id. at 9-11,) and committed criminal offenses against her, (see id. at 20-21.) Hamilton has demanded an "award [of] all losses and damages of $250,000.00 in treble in the form of cashier's checks from each guilty party, the conspirator/perpetrators under the leadership and direction of Tim Cole . . . , Harry Volz, Kristin Hawley and Elizabeth Keeling[.]" (Id. at 23.)

II. DISCUSSION

For purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, the Court presumes without deciding that all defendants properly have been served with process and that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over them.

A. Dismissal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The United States is substituted for defendants Channing Phillips, Wendy Pohlhaus, Scott L. Sroka, Hon. Rudolph Contreras, Hon. Lewis Babcock, Daniel F. Van Horn and Roger Kemp. If the Court were to construe Hamilton's amended complaint so liberally as to raise a tort claim against the federal government, or against a government officer or employee acting in his or her official capacity, the claim must proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). The United States is the only proper defendant in a suit under the FTCA. See, e.g., Hall v. Admin. Office of U.S. Courts, 496 F. Supp. 2d 203, 206 (D.D.C. 2007). Even though Hamilton has not named the United States as a party, the Court overlooks this pleading defect and instead treats Hamilton's purported tort claim as if she brought it against the United States directly. See, e.g., Hui v. Castaneda, 559 U.S. 799, 810 (2010).

The FTCA allows a claimant to file a civil suit for claims of "personal injury . . . caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). This is a waiver of sovereign immunity, see United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980), and "the terms of [the United States'] consent to be sued in any court define [the] court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit," id. (quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941)).

There are limitations under and exceptions to the FTCA which militate dismissal of any tort claim Hamilton purports to bring against the United States. Relevant to this case is the exhaustion requirement:

An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail.

28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (emphasis added). "The FTCA bars claimants from bringing suit in federal court until they have exhausted their administrative remedies," and a claimant's "fail[ure] to heed that clear statutory command" warrants dismissal of any tort claim Hamilton attempts to bring. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); see Henderson v. Ratner, No. 10-5035, 2010 WL 2574175, at *1 (D.C. Cir. June 7, 2010) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of FTCA claim where "[a]ppellant failed to demonstrate that he exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit in the district court").

The United States argues that any tort claim Hamilton raises against it must be dismissed on the ground that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to filing this action. (See Def. United States's Mot. to Dismiss at 3.) Hamilton does not allege or otherwise demonstrate that she submitted a tort claim to the appropriate federal agency. Her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction, see GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 904 (D.C. Cir. 1987), and her purported tort claim against the United States must be dismissed, see, e.g., Evans v. Tyler, No. 17-CV-02728, 2018 WL 5312189, at *3 (D.D.C. Oct. 26, 2018) ("Thus, to the extent Plaintiff's Complaint can be construed to state a claim under the FTCA, the court dismisses the Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for failure to exhaust administrative remedies."); Coulibaly v. Pompeo, 318 F. Supp. 3d 176, 188 (D.D.C. 2018) (dismissing FTCA claim where plaintiff "has not demonstrated that he has exhausted his administrative remedies under the FTCA to pursue a claim against the United States").

B. Dismissal Under Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain, among other things, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). It also "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Cheeks v. Fort Myer Construction Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 168 (D.D.C. 2014) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Its factual allegations must "'give the defendant[s] fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)) (ellipses in original). In other words, a plaintiff must plead sufficient factual content to provide each defendant with "fair notice of the claim being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata is applicable." Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977) (citation omitted); see Mayfield v. Garcia, No. 16-CV-0805, 2018 WL 1135642, at *3 (D.N.M. Feb. 28, 2018) ("Rule 8(a)'s purpose is to require plaintiffs to state their claims intelligibly so as to give fair notice of the claims to opposing parties and the court.").

A party may move to dismiss a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion "tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint." Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Acomplaint survives such a motion if it "contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While "detailed factual allegations" are not required, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) ("Specific facts are not necessary[.]"), a complaint must include "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged," Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see Patton Boggs LLP v. Chevron Corp., 683 F.3d 397, 403 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

A complaint drafted by a pro se party is held to a less stringent standard than would be applied to a complaint drafted by a lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the Court's duty to liberally construe a pro se party's submission is not "a license to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 658 F. Supp. 2d 135, 137 (D.D.C. 2009); see Leisure v. Hogan, 21 F. App'x 277, 278 (6th Cir. 2001) ("[T]he less stringent standard for pro se plaintiffs does not compel courts to conjure up unpleaded facts to support conclusory allegations."). The Court should not "rewrite a petition to include claims that were never presented," Parker v. Champion, 148 F.3d 1219, 1222 (10th Cir. 1998), or "conjure up and decide issues never fairly presented to [the Court,]" Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1276 (4th Cir. 1985).

1. District of Columbia Defendants

Among the defendants listed in the caption of the amended complaint are: Marcus Stevens, Clifton Weaver, David Edelstein, Shelika Brooks, Latisha Goodwin, Leslie Parsons, Chief Newsham, Karl Racine, and Valarie Scott. Counsel...