Shahin v. United States

SUBHI H. SHAHIN, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 8:20-cv-03242-PX

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

July 14, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before this Court is Defendant the United States of America (the "United States")'s Motion to Dismiss brought pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 7. The motions are fully briefed and no hearing is necessary. Loc. R. 105.6. For the following reasons, the motion is granted.

I. Background

Pro se Plaintiff Subhi H. Shahin ("Mr. Shahin") is the primary caregiver for his wife, Donna L. Shahin ("Mrs. Shahin"), and son, Shahin S. Shahin ("Shahin Shahin"). They suffer from serious health issues which Mr. Shahin believes were caused by Mrs. Shahin's exposure to chemicals while working at Walter Reed Army Medical Center ("Walter Reed"), overseen by the Department of Defense ("DOD").¹ ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 3-5; see also About Us, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, https://walterreed.tricare.mil/About-Us, (last visited July 13, 2021).

Mrs. Shahin began her career as a civilian research biochemist with Walter Reed in 1979. ECF No. 1 ¶ 3. At work, Mrs. Shahin was exposed to organic solvents which the Shahins believe may have caused birth defects in their son, Shahin Shahin. See id. ¶ 5. While stillemployed at Walter Reed, Mrs. Shahin gave birth to Shahin Shahin on December 29, 1983. Id. Several years later, on January 27, 1989, Mrs. Shahin collapsed while working at Walter Reed, and thereafter took extended medical leave. Id. ¶ 3. Since her collapse, Mrs. Shahin has experienced prolonged depression and other chronic, severe mental and physical health ailments. Id.; see also ECF No. 1-1 at 14-15.

In or around 1992, Mr. Shahin applied for worker's compensation benefits on Mrs. Shahin's behalf with the federal Office of Workers' Compensation Programs ("OWCP") and pursuant to the Federal Employees' Compensation Act ("FECA"). ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 3-4. The OWCP granted Mrs. Shahin benefits for her "prolonged depressive reaction," but declined any claims related to her claimed "chemical exposure" and refused to award compensation for Mrs. Shahin to hire an attendant. Id.; see also ECF No. 1-1 at 11. Mr. Shahin subsequently filed multiple appeals and requests for reconsideration to the Employees' Compensation Appeals Board, each of which was denied. ECF Nos. 1 ¶ 4; 1-1 at 11, 13-19.

Additionally, as Shahin Shahin matured, he was plagued with an array of physical illnesses. On July 16, 2001, doctors diagnosed him with myofascial pain syndrome and congenital lumbar spinal stenosis. ECF No. 1 ¶ 5. Shahin Shahin, now an adult, continues to suffer from debilitating chronic pain and depression. Id. ¶ 7.

Although Mr. Shahin addressed in the OWCP proceedings adverse outcomes associated with Mrs. Shahin's exposure to organic solvents, he now maintains that he did not know of the associated risks of birth defects as to Shahin Shahin until November 15, 2019. ECF No. 1 ¶ 7. Armed with this information, Mr. Shahin mounted an extensive campaign for help from various public officials. ECF No. 1-1 at 3-12, 20-21. He sent letters to the President of the United States, the Attorney General, the Department of Labor, and copied the DOD, chronicling hisfamily's injuries allegedly arising from their exposure to chemicals at Walter Reed and demanding millions of dollars in damages. Id.

Evidently dissatisfied with the outcome of these efforts, Mr. Shahin next turned to this Court. On November 9, 2020, Mr. Shahin filed this negligence suit on behalf of his wife and adult son and against the DOD. ECF No. 1; see also ECF No. 1-1 at 8 (explaining the cause of action as "simply negligence and tort"). The Complaint avers that the DOD negligently exposed Mrs. Shahin to toxins, and by extension, her son while in-utero, and that this exposure resulted in life-long illnesses which has rendered the family near destitute. ECF No. 1. As relief, the Complaint seeks more than 18.5 million dollars for "COVID 19 relief," an allowance for an attendant, and "to protect [Shahin Shahin's] future and to allow him to live with dignity." Id. at p. 3.

The United States moves to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss.

II. Standard of Review

Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, hearing only those cases that the courts are authorized to resolve by Congress and the Constitution. Home Buyers Warranty Corp. v. Hanna, 750 F.3d 427, 432 (4th Cir. 2014). A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges the Court's limited subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); see United States ex rel. Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337, 347 (4th Cir. 2009). Generally, questions of subject matter jurisdiction, "must be decided first, because they concern the court's very power to hear the case." Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Meade, 186 F.3d 435, 442 n. 4 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff bears the burden ofproving that subject matter jurisdiction exists by a preponderance of the evidence. Piney Run Preservation Ass'n v. Cnty. Comm'rs of Carroll Cnty., 523 F.3d 453, 459 (4th Cir. 2008); Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999).

In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the court "may consider evidence outside the pleadings" to help determine whether it has jurisdiction over the case before it. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991); see also Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). The Court may grant a motion to dismiss on 12(b)(1) grounds "only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law." Evans, 166 F.3d at 647; see also Jadhav, 555 F.3d at 347-48.

A motion brought under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the sufficiency of the complaint. In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court "accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Rockville Cars, LLC v. City of Rockville, 891 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 2018). The Court may also consider documents attached to the motion to dismiss when "integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint, and when the [opposing parties] do not challenge the document[s'] authenticity." Zak v. Chelsea Therapeutics, Int'l, Ltd., 780 F.3d 597, 606-07 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Am. Chiropractic Ass'n v. Trigon Healthcare, Inc., 367 F.3d 212, 234 (4th Cir. 2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

To survive a motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). "A plaintiff must provide sufficient detail to show that he has a more-than-conceivable chance of success on the merits." UpstateForever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637, 645 (4th Cir. 2018), vacated on other grounds, 140 S. Ct. 2736 (2020). Where a party raises a statute of limitations defense, the Court may consider the defense in resolving the motion to dismiss so long as the facts sufficient to rule are clear from the Complaint. Desgraviers v. PF-Frederick, LLC, 501 F. Supp. 3d 348, 352 (D. Md. 2020) (quoting Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir. 2007)).

A district court must liberally construe a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). The court may not, however, ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). If the Court can reasonably read the complaint as stating a claim for relief, it should do so; however, a district court may not rewrite a complaint in order for it to survive a motion to dismiss. Desgraviers, 501 F. Supp. 3d at 351 (citing Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985)).

III. Analysis

A. Parties in this Action

As an initial matter, the Court must address the difficulties arising from the pro se Complaint which fails to name as plaintiffs Mrs. Shahin and Shahin Shahin, the real parties in interest. Rule 17(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that "[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest." Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(1). A real party in interest is the one who is "entitled under the substantive law to enforce the right sued upon and who generally but not necessarily benefits from the action's final outcome." Poteet v. Sauter, 136 Md. App. 383, 400 (2001) (citing Mid-Atlantic Power Supply Ass'n. v. Public Service Com'n, 361 Md. 196, 221 (2000)). See also Morton v. Schlotzhauer, 449 Md. 217, 242 (2016);S. Down Liquors, Inc. v. Hayes, 323 Md. 4, 7 (1991) (collecting sources). Thus, as a general matter, the party actually injured retains the sole right to pursue his or her own claims.

Rule 17(a)(1) sets out certain exceptions to this requirement, allowing suit to be brought on behalf of another when the named Plaintiff is "(A) an executor; (B) an administrator; (C) a guardian; (D) a bailee; (E) a trustee of an express trust; (F) a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for another's benefit; [or] (G) a party authorized by statute." Id. But the Complaint, read most favorably to the Shahins, does not make plausible that Mr. Shahin fits into any of these categories as to either his wife or his adult son. That said, it would be improper to dismiss this pro se Complaint for failure to...