Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02730/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02730-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD KA’ANOI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CLIFFORD R. KERR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:06-cv-02730 JKS EFB

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding in propria persona, seeks to sue the Defense Reutilization and

Marketing Service (“DRMS”) and certain of its employees for assault, libel and slander. The

United States was substituted for the originally named defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2679(d)(2). The United States filed a motion to dismiss alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 

On August 20, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were

served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and

recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff has filed objections and Defendant has

filed a reply. These documents were reviewed by the undersigned. 

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to

any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States,

Case 2:06-cv-02730-JKS-EFB Document 27 Filed 01/15/08 Page 1 of 3
A negligence claim may be lurking in the background as Plaintiff states that DRMS 1

“allowed” the named employees to engage in the unspecified conduct. See Docket No. 8. 

Additionally, Plaintiff expressly alleges that certain actions were taken for the purpose of inflicting

emotional harm. Id. 

ORDER

2

602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de

novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The Court finds the findings and recommendations with regard to dismissal of DRMS, and

the dismissal of the suit for failure to exhaust to be fully supported. The Court however has

misgivings regarding the recommendation to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant

to the exception for libel and slander at 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). Although it is true that Plaintiff only

indicated on his civil cover sheet an intent to proceed on theories of libel, slander, and assault, the

Ninth Circuit requires us to look beyond the characterization of the complaint to the specified

conduct. Thomas-Lazear v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 851 F.2d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 1988). 

To the extent that Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the alleged libel and slander, the magistrate

judge is correct that this Court would lack subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). 

However, the exception would likely not preclude a claim against the Government where the

Government’s own negligence is the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injury. See e.g., Bennett v.

United States, 803 F.2d 1502 (9th Cir. 1986)(assault and battery exception did not apply when

plaintiffs alleged that negligent hiring and supervision was the proximate cause of injuries to their

minor child); Senger v. United States, 103 F.3d 1437 (9th Cir. 1996)(assault and battery exception

did not apply when plaintiff alleged that negligent hiring, supervision, and failure to warn were the

proximate cause of his injuries). The exception would also not apply to a claim of intentional

infliction of emotional distress, which did not arise out of the alleged libel and slander. See e.g.

Sabow v. United States, 93 F.3d 1445, 1456-57 (9th Cir. 1996). As Plaintiff’s pleadings make it

difficult to evaluate what claims are being asserted, it is possible he could be alleging intentional

infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision or training on the part of the United

States. Given the state of pleading and the need for administrative review of Plaintiff’s claims, the 1

Court does not believe it necessary or appropriate to rule on this question at this time.

Case 2:06-cv-02730-JKS-EFB Document 27 Filed 01/15/08 Page 2 of 3
ORDER

3

In order for Mr. Ka’anoi to successfully refile his claim against the United States under the

Federal Tort Claims Act, he must first present his claim to the Defense Reutilization and Marketing

Service. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The claim is normally presented in writing on a Government

form known as Standard Form 95, available from federal agencies or on the internet. See

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/formslibrary.do. Mr. Ka’anoi must present the claim to DRMS

within two years of the accrual of his claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). If these two years have already

elapsed, but the claim accrued within two years of the date he filed his original complaint in this

case, December 4, 2006, then Mr. Ka’anoi will be given sixty days from today to present his claim

to DRMS. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(5). If DRMS finally denies the administrative claim, Mr.

Ka’anoi may return to federal court and institute a new action against the United States. Care

should be taken to do this expeditiously as other deadlines will apply. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) and

(b). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 20, 2007, are adopted to the extent they

are consistent with this Order;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss at Docket No. 12 is GRANTED;

3. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust; and,

4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for Defendant.

Dated this the 14th day of January 2008.

 /s/ James K. Singleton, Jr. 

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR. 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-02730-JKS-EFB Document 27 Filed 01/15/08 Page 3 of 3