Colbert v. US Marshal's Office ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    FILED
    AUG 10 2010
    Antonio Colbert,                                       )                                Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy
    )                               Courts for the District of Columbia
    Plaintiff,                             )
    )
    Civil Action No.
    v.                                     )
    )                              10 1345
    U.S. Marshal's Office,                                 )
    )
    Defendant.                             )
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and
    application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint
    dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring
    dismissal of an action "at any time" the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).
    Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing the United States Marshals Service for
    alleged misconduct by the "security guards" at this courthouse. Compl. at 2. He alleges that the
    "security staff has become abusive and argumentative towards me!" Id. Plaintiff seeks $50,000
    in monetary damages.
    A claim for monetary damages against the United States, including its agency
    components, is cognizable under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 2671
     et
    seq. Such a claim is maintainable, however, only after the plaintiff has exhausted his
    administrative remedies by "first present[ing] the claim to the appropriate Federal agency .... "
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2675
    . This exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. See GAF Corp. v. United
    States, 
    818 F.2d 901
    ,917-20 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 
    730 F.2d 808
    ,809 (D.C.
    Cir. 1984); Stokes v.   u.s. Postal Service, 
    937 F. Supp. 11
    , 14 (D.D.C. 1996).   Plaintiff has not
    -   "m
    indicated that he exhausted his administrative remedies. The complaint therefore will be
    dismissed. See Abdurrahman v. Engstrom, 
    168 Fed.Appx. 445
    , 445 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per
    curiam) ("[T]he district court properly dismissed case [based on unexhausted FTCA claim] for
    lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "). A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum
    Opinion.
    Date: August ~, 2010
    ~
    Ilited
    hI    -``
    4
    Statts'Distnudge
    8 ""'- _ __
    ...
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2010-1345

Judges: Judge Paul L. Friedman

Filed Date: 8/10/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014