Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04964/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04964-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Docket No. 55.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 TREASURY DEPARTMENT ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C05-04964 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant Treasury Department et al.’s (“Federal Defendants”) Motion

to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State Claim pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and Alternatively Motion for a More Definite

Statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).1 Pro se Plaintiff Robert Curtis

(“Plaintiff”) has failed to file an opposition to Federal Defendants’ motion. For the following

reasons, the Court GRANTS Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Treasury Department, Small

Business Administration, Veterans Administration, and Homeland Security pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6). 

The Court also GRANTS Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the remaining Federal

Defendants pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this Order file a

Second Amended Complaint to properly allege his claims, if any, against the remaining Federal

Case 3:05-cv-04964-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/31/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Pro se Plaintiff’s original complaint alleged that on November 22, 2004, he received notice from the Department

of Treasury (“DOT”) that he owed the Portland Veterans Hospital $600.44 for pharmacy charges after his quadruple bypass

surgery. The DOT intended on collecting the debt by intercepting any federal payments made to him in accordance with the

Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”). 

Pro se Plaintiff alleged that from October 15, 2004 until December 12, 2004, he was employed by the Small

Business Administration as a Loss Verifier. During this time, he received travel advances in the form of travel vouchers

deposited directly into a government issued Visa account in Plaintiff’s name. Plaintiff alleged that the DOT intercepted the

total amount owed to the Portland Veterans Hospital ($600.44) from travel vouchers that were deposited into his Visa

account. Plaintiff alleges that this action resulted in a violation of the TOP. According to the original complaint, because

Plaintiff’s travel advance was used to offset his debt to the Portland Veterans Hospital, he was held responsible for travel

costs accrued during his employment with the Small Business Administration. Plaintiff alleges that he was unable to pay

such amount and not subsequently rehired. Plaintiff’s original complaint stated that in June, 2005, he contacted the Small

Business Administration via telephone in attempt to resolve the issue. Further, Plaintiff alleged that on November 22, 2005,

he was notified that the DOT had intercepted his year 2003 Federal Tax Return for eighty-one dollars. Plaintiff alleged this

interception was also a violation of the TOP. Plaintiff sought relief for $10,000,730.23 alleging that the government’s

conduct was fraudulent in satisfying Plaintiff’s debt to the Portland Veterans Hospital. 

3

Docket No. 46. Plaintiff’s opposition to Federal Defendants’ first motion to dismiss was untimely, however because

he was proceeding pro se, the Court considered his brief. 

4

On April 23, 2007, this Court granted Visa U.S.A.’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for failure

to state a claim and for insufficient process and service, and again gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended claim against Visa

U.S.A. (Docket No. 59.)

2

Defendants, which now consist of the United States and the four individual Defendants. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

As best the Court can discern, pro se Plaintiff’s amended complaint arises from the alleged

procedures used to satisfy a debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiff to the Portland Veterans Hospital. 

On December 1, 2005, Plaintiff filed the original complaint.2

 On February 7, 2007, this

Court granted the Federal Defendants’ first motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to

state a claim and gave Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint.3 In granting Federal

Defendants’ Motion, the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to comply with the pleading

requirements of the FTCA by: (1) naming individual agencies as Defendants, rather than the United

States; and (2) by naming individual Defendants without alleging that the individuals were acting

outside the course of their employment. The Court also found that Plaintiff had failed to allege that

he had filed an administrative claim as required by the FTCA. On March 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed the

Amended Complaint, which is the operative complaint before the Court.4

 

Pro se Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is entitled, “Amended Complaint in Federal Fraud

Against Robert Curtis.” In his Amended Complaint, pro se Plaintiff complains of “fraud” and “Lost

[sic] of Money, Slander, Discrimination, Lost [sic] of Credit, Lost [sic] of Income, Lost [sic] of Auto

Case 3:05-cv-04964-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/31/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

The named individual Defendants, as they appear in the caption of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are “Glenda –

Supervisor TOCS, Barbara Zepeda, Tanya N. Garfield – Deputy Area Director, and Inspector Lott.” (FAC at p. 1.) 

3

Insurance, Lost [sic] of Drivers [sic] License, Degradation with Starvation and Death just around the

corner.” (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ V.1, VI.7.) Plaintiff names the United States,

Treasury Department, Small Business Administration, Veterans Administration, the Department of

Homeland Security, four individuals5 employed by these agencies (collectively “Federal

Defendants”), Bank of America, and “Visa Card” as additional Defendants in this action. 

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Rule 12(b)(1) authorizes a party to move to dismiss a claim for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; thus, the Court presumes lack of

jurisdiction, and the party seeks to invoke the court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that

subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377

(1994). A party challenging the court's jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) may do so by raising either

a facial attack or a factual attack. See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). 

A facial attack is one where “the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a

complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone v.

Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In evaluating a facial attack to jurisdiction, the Court

must accept the factual allegations in plaintiff's complaint as true. See Miranda v. Reno, 238 F.3d

1156, 1157 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2001). For a factual attack, in contrast, the Court may consider extrinsic

evidence. See Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, the court does

not have to assume the truthfulness of the allegations, and may resolve any factual disputes. See

White, 227 F.3d at 1242. Thus, “[o]nce the moving party has converted the motion to dismiss into a

factual motion by presenting affidavits or evidence properly before the court, the party opposing the

motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing

subject matter jurisdiction. Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir.

2003). 

 In the Ninth Circuit, “[j]urisdictional dismissals in cases premised on federal-question

Case 3:05-cv-04964-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/31/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

jurisdiction are exceptional, and must satisfy the requirements specific in Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678

[] (1946).” Sun Valley Gas., Inc. v. Ernst Enters., 711 F.2d 138, 140 (9th Cir. 1983); see Safe Air for

Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039. The Bell standard provides that jurisdictional dismissals are warranted

“where the alleged claim under the [C]onstitution or federal statute clearly appears to be immaterial

and made solely for the purpose of obtaining federal jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly

insubstantial and frivolous.” 327 U.S. at 682-83. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has admonished

that a “[j]urisdictional finding of genuinely disputed facts is inappropriate when ‘the jurisdictional

issue and substantive issues are so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is dependent on the

resolution of factual issues going to the merits’ of an action.” Sun Valley, 711 F.2d at 139. The

jurisdictional issue and the substantive issues are intertwined where “a statute provides the basis for

both the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court and the plaintiff’s substantive claim for

relief.” Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039 (quoting Sun Valley, 711 F.2d at 139).

II. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State Claim

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim. Navarro

v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Because the focus of a 12(b)(6) motion is on the legal

sufficiency, rather than the substantive merits of a claim, the Court ordinarily limits its review to the

face of the complaint. See Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir.

2002). Generally, dismissal is proper only when the plaintiff has failed to assert a cognizable legal

theory or failed to allege sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See SmileCare Dental

Group v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., Inc., 88 F.3d 780, 782 (9th Cir. 1996); Balisteri v. Pacifica

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d

530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984). Further, dismissal is appropriate only if it appears beyond a doubt that the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of a claim. See Abramson v. Brownstein, 897 F.2d 389,

391 (9th Cir. 1990). In considering a 12(b)(6) motion, the Court accepts the plaintiff’s material

allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 

See Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000). 

ANALYSIS

I. Pleading Requirements Under the FTCA

Case 3:05-cv-04964-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/31/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

In Allen, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that

United States, not Veterans Administration was the proper defendant. Id.

5

A. United States as the Only Proper Party

Plaintiff frames his Amended Complaint as a tort action against the Treasury Department,

Small Business Administration, Veterans Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and

four individuals. Federal Defendants contend that under the FTCA, the only proper defendant is the

United States, not the other agencies listed in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Allen v. Veteran’s

Administration, 749 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1984) (stating that under the FTCA “individual

agencies of the United States may not be sued.”)6

 Unlike their previous motion to dismiss, Federal

Defendants do not seek to dismiss the claims against the individual Defendants here. 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint again names individual agencies as Defendants. Because

Plaintiff has failed to properly amend his claims, the Court finds that Plaintiff has again failed to

comply with the requirements of the FTCA. For this reason, the Court GRANTS Federal

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Treasury Department, Small Business Administration, Veterans

Administration, and Homeland Security for failure to state a claim. 

B. Plaintiff Must Affirmatively Allege Compliance with the FTCA 

 Federal Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails because Plaintiff

has failed to allege that he filed a written claim for a sum certain as required by the FTCA.

In order to exhaust administrative remedies under the FTCA, a written claim must be timely

presented to the appropriate federal agency. 28 U.S.C. § § 2401(b), 2672, 2675. “The timely filing

of an administrative claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the bringing of suit under the FTCA [ ]

and as such should be affirmatively alleged in the complaint.” Gillespie v. Civileti, 629 F.2d 637,

640 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Caton v. United States, 495 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1974)) (stating that

“[although the] district court may dismiss a complaint for failure to allege this jurisdictional

prerequisite . . . the pleader should be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint to attempt

to cure such pleading defects.”) The term “claim” as used in the FTCA means a “claim for a sum

certain.” See Caton, 495 F.2d 635. The sum certain requirement demands more than a mere general

notice to the government of the approximate amount of the claim. Rather, a specific dollar amount

Case 3:05-cv-04964-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/31/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

is necessary. See e.g., id. at 636; see also Bailey v. United States, 642 F.2d 344, 345-47 (9th Cir.

1981); Caidin v. United States, 564 F.2d 284, 286 (9th Cir. 1977); Avril v. United States, 461 F.2d

1090, 1091 (9th Cir. 1972). 

Here, in his Amended Complaint, pro se Plaintiff’s alleges that he has “‘Presented a Claim to

the Appropriate Federal Agencies and the Plaintiff’s ‘Claim’ was ‘Denied’ when the Plaintiff was

told, “Go To Hell!” by Federal Employees. However, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is insufficient

to state a claim under the FTCA for multiple reasons. First, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not

affirmatively allege that he filed a written administrative claim as required by the FTCA. Second,

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not allege a specific dollar amount for his claim and therefore

fails to satisfy the “sum certain” requirement under the FTCA. 

Because Plaintiff has failed to allege the timely presentation of a written claim with a “sum

certain,” the Court GRANTS Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss the remaining Federal

Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this

Order file a Second Amended Complaint to properly allege his claims, if any, against the remaining

Federal Defendants, which consist of the United States and the four individual Defendants.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Treasury Department, Small Business Administration, Veterans Administration, and Homeland

Security pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 

The Court also GRANTS Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the remaining Federal

Defendants pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this Order file a

Second Amended Complaint to properly allege his claims, if any, against the remaining Federal

Defendants, which now consist of the United States and the four individual Defendants. Failure to

properly amend the complaint may result in dismissal with prejudice. The hearing in this matter set

for June 5, 2007 is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May___, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04964-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/31/07 Page 6 of 6