Rangolaw v. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( 2010 )

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR - 9 2010
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Cleerk, u.s. District anCi
ankruptcy Courts
PAUL A. RANGALAW,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No.
10 ~3i4
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and
pro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed.
While plaintiff was in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he was
transferred from the Hampton Roads Regional Jail to the Rappahannock Regional Jail. Because
the Rappahannock Regional Jail did not accept detainees' property, plaintiffs property was taken
to ICE's Washington Field Office for storage. According to plaintiff, ICE has lost his property,
and he now demands compensation.
It appears that plaintiffs sale means of recovery comes under the Federal Tort Claims
Act ("FCTA"), see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). The FTC A provides that the "United States shall be
liable [for tort claims] in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under
like circumstances." 28 U.S.C. § 2674(a). It requires that a claimant present his claim to the
appropriate federal agency prior to filing a civil action in a federal district court. McNeil v.
United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (requiring claimant to present
claim "for money damages for injury or loss of property ... caused by the negligent or wrongful
act or omission of any employee ofthe Government while acting within the scope of his office or
3
employment ... to the appropriate Federal agency" from which written notice of the denial of the
claim has been forwarded to the claimant before a suit may be filed). It does not appear that
plaintiffhas exhausted of his administrative remedies by having presented his claim first to the
appropriate agency and, absent exhaustion, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See
McNeil, 508 U.S. at 113.
The Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An Order
consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately on this same date.
DATE: .,2,4;' ...
~/~/:JDrl>