Levi v. United States ( 2012 )

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APR 2 3 2012
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia
)
HUNTER R. LEVI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 12 fJ635
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Defendant. )
_______________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis
and his pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiff purports to bring this action against the United States under the Federal Tort
Claims Act ("FTCA"), see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-80. Generally, plaintiff alleges that the
United States Department of Labor interfered with or obstructed plaintiff's various civil actions
against his former employer, Anheuser Busch Companies, Inc., and complaints he submitted
pursuant to the whistleblower provision ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act, see 18 U.S.C. § 1514A.
Based on the Court's review of the complaint and its attachments, the alleged tortious conduct
occurred when attorneys submitted false statements to the court in matters before the United
States Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Eighth Circuit and before the
Supreme Court of the United States.
The FTCA waives the United States' sovereign immunity "for injury ... caused by the
negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government acting within the
scope of his office or employment," but only to the extent that "a private person[] would be
,.. I}/
liable . . . in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28
U.S.C. § 1346(b)(l); see Hornbeck Offshore Transp., LLC v. United States, 569 F.3d 506, 508
(D.C. Cir. 2009). "[T]he District of Columbia has long recognized an absolute privilege for
statements made preliminary to, or in the course of, a judicial proceeding, so long as the
statements bear some relation to the proceeding." Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran v.
Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc., 774 A.2d 332, 338 (D.C. 2001) (affirming dismissal of defamation
claim against lawyer for statements made out of court and prior to litigation), overruled on other
grounds by McNair Builders, Inc. v. Taylor, 3 A.3d 1132 (D.C. 2010); see also Arneja v. Gildar,
541 A.2d 621,623 (D.C. 1988). Insofar as the allegedly false statements were made in the
context oflitigation, judicial privilege bars plaintiffs claim. See Ginsberg v. Granados, 963
A.2d 1134, 1140 (D.C. 2009); Geier v. Jordan, 107 A.2d 440 (D.C. 1954). Accordingly, the
complaint will be dismissed. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: OfJ It ;IiJf;;>-