Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03784/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03784-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER J. VERBIL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JAMES W. MORFORD,

Defendant. /

No. C-15-3784 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS; SUBSTITUTING

UNITED STATES AS DEFENDANT;

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; QUASHING SUBPOENAS

SERVED BY PLAINTIFF; VACATING

HEARING

Before the Court is defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed August 21, 2015, and

renoticed September 10, 2015, which motion seeks (1) an order substituting the United

States as defendant in place of James W. Morford (“Morford”), (2) an order dismissing the

action against the United States for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and (3) an

order quashing subpoenas to appear at a hearing in state court, served by plaintiff

Christopher J. Verbil on two members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Plaintiff has filed

opposition, limited to the issue of whether the United States should be substituted as

defendant, and defendant has filed a reply. Having read and considered the papers filed in

support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision

on the parties’ respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for

October 23, 2015, and hereby GRANTS the motion, as follows:

1. The Chief of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office having

Case 3:15-cv-03784-MMC Document 28 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 3
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

The Court notes that the United States, although not required to do so, has offered

with the moving papers evidence to support the certification, namely, that Morbil was acting

within the scope of his employment when he engaged in the challenged conduct. (See

Leighton-Nevesny Decl., filed August 21, 2015, ¶ 6.)

2

certified that the challenged conduct taken by Morford occurred while Morford was “acting

within the course and scope of his . . . employment” (see Certification, filed August 19,

2015), and plaintiff having failed to offer any evidence to the contrary, the United States is

hereby SUBSTITUTED as defendant. See Green v. Hall, 8 F.3d 695, 698 (9th Cir. 1993)

(holding “Attorney General’s decision regarding scope of employment certification is

conclusive unless challenged”; further holding party seeking to challenge certification

“bears the burden of presenting evidence and disproving the Attorney General’s decision to

grant . . . scope of employment certification”); 28 C.F.R. § 154.4(a) (providing director of

“Civil Division” of United States Attorney’s Office “is authorized” to certify that federal

employee named in complaint was acting within scope of employment).1

2. As plaintiff does not allege in his complaint, or contend in his opposition, that he

submitted to the United States an administrative claim seeking relief for the injury alleged in

the complaint, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to plaintiff’s

submission of an administrative claim to “the appropriate Federal agency.” See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2675(a) (providing “action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States

for money damages for injury . . . unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to

the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency

in writing”); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (holding § 2675(a) “bars

claimants from bringing suit in federal court until they have exhausted their administrative

remedies”).

3. The “Small Claims Subpoenas” served by plaintiff on Rolland L. Johnson and on

Dean McFarren, each of whom are members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, commanding

them to appear at an October 9, 2015, hearing in the Superior Court of California (see

Leighton-Nevesny Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Exs. 2-3) are hereby QUASHED. See In re Elko County

Grand Jury, 109 F.3d 554, 556 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding doctrine of sovereign immunity

Case 3:15-cv-03784-MMC Document 28 Filed 10/15/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

precludes state courts from exercising jurisdiction to subpoena federal officers acting within

scope of delegated authority). Moreover, as the instant action was removed from state

court to district court prior to October 9, 2015, any dispute regarding the enforcement of the

subpoenas is moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03784-MMC Document 28 Filed 10/15/15 Page 3 of 3