Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-00013/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-00013-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dominique Antaune White,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-24-00013-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Before the court are the Government’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 25) and several 

motions submitted by Plaintiff Dominique Antaune White (Docs. 21, 22, 23, & 33). For 

the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants the Government’s motion, rendering White’s 

motions moot. 

I. Background

White, who is self-represented, alleges that he visited the Veteran Medical Center 

in Phoenix, Arizona in 2017. (Doc. 1 at 4.) He claims that, during his visit, he was 

forcefully administered drugs and sexually assaulted. (Id.) He filed this claim on January 

3, 2024. (Id. at 1.) He has since filed several motions: a “motion to have medical 

information disclose[d] to cooperate with investigation” (Doc. 21); a “motion for concern 

of safety and security for pittybike@gmail.com” (Doc. 22); a “motion in remembrance of 

Maggie Hurtzell” (Doc. 23); and a “motion to comply with federal investigation” (Doc. 

33). 

Case 2:24-cv-00013-DLR Document 35 Filed 12/05/24 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

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

White did not submit an administrative claim to the Department of Veterans Affairs

(“VA”) prior to filing suit. (Doc. 25-1.) The Government now moves to dismiss for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction due to White’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

(Doc. 25 at 1.)

I. Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a party may move to dismiss a case 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Tosco Corp. v. Cmtys. for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 

495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 

77 (2010); see also Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216, 1227 (9th Cir. 

2011). “Motions to dismiss under this Rule ‘may attack either the allegations of the 

complaint as insufficient to confer upon the court subject matter jurisdiction, or the 

existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact.’” Sabra v. Maricopa Cnty. Comty. Coll. 

Dist., 479 F. Supp. 3d 808, 813 (D. Ariz. 2020) (quoting Renteria v. United States, 452 F. 

Supp. 2d 910, 919 (D. Ariz. 2006)).

In resolving a facial attack, the court must accept the allegations in the complaint as 

true and construe them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Renteria, 452 F. Supp. 2d 

at 919. Dismissal is improper unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove 

no set of facts supporting his claim that would entitle him to relief. Love v. United States, 

915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). In resolving a factual attack, on the other hand, the 

court does not attach presumptive truthfulness to the allegations in the pleading, and the 

court may review any evidence outside the pleadings, including affidavits and testimony, 

to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction. McCarthy v. United 

States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988). 

II. Analysis

The Government attacks subject matter jurisdiction both facially and factually. To 

establish subject matter jurisdiction in a case against the United States, there must be (1) 

“statutory authority vesting a district court with subject matter jurisdiction,” and (2) “a 

waiver of sovereign immunity.” Alvarado v. Table Mountain Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008, 

Case 2:24-cv-00013-DLR Document 35 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 4
- 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

1016 (9th Cir. 2007). Even where statutory authority vests the Court with subject matter 

jurisdiction, the Government must consent to suit. Dunn & Black, P.S. v. United States, 

492 F.3d 1084, 1087–88 (9th Cir. 2007). A waiver of sovereign immunity must be express 

and unequivocal, and the Court must construe these waivers in favor of the Government. 

Id. at 1088.

The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) provides a limited statutory waiver of the 

United States’ sovereign immunity for cases like White’s. The FTCA provides that the 

United States can be sued for tort claims arising from negligent or wrongful acts of federal 

employees acting within the scope of their employment. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). But for 

any such claim to survive, a claimant must strictly comply with the FTCA’s prerequisites 

to filing suit. See Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1992). The FTCA 

requires claimants to file an administrative claim with the appropriate administrative 

agency before bringing suit. 28 U.S.C. § 2675; Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 

(9th Cir. 2000); Cadwalder v. United States, 45 F.3d 297, 300 (9th Cir. 1995). “The 

requirement of an administrative claim is jurisdictional” and therefore must be “strictly 

adhered to.” Brady, 211 F.3d at 502.

Here, even construing the Complaint liberally,1it contains no allegation that White 

submitted an administrative claim prior to filing suit. Thus, facially, the claim is lacking 

subject matter jurisdiction. But the Government has also submitted evidence that White 

cannot amend his complaint to allege compliance because he, in fact, never filed an 

administrative claim. The Government submitted a declaration from Cynthia Hernandez, 

Deputy Chief Counsel of the VA, who attested that any administrative claim White 

submitted would have been recorded in the VA’s computerized database. (Doc. 25-1.) That 

database contains no record of any administrative claim submitted by White. (Doc. 25-1.) 

White does not contest this point in his response, nor does he submit any evidence to 

contradict the Government’s evidence. (See Doc. 30.) In fact, his response appears to admit

1

“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed and a pro se complaint, 

however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings 

drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotations and citations 

omitted).

Case 2:24-cv-00013-DLR Document 35 Filed 12/05/24 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

he did not submit an administrative claim. (See id. at 5.) 

The Government has demonstrated a lack of subject matter jurisdiction requiring 

dismissal. White failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the FTCA.

The Court thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the case. Dismissal 

renders White’s motions moot.

IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 25) is 

GRANTED. The case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all remaining motions as moot 

and close this case. 

Dated this 4th day of December, 2024.

Douglas L. Rayes

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:24-cv-00013-DLR Document 35 Filed 12/05/24 Page 4 of 4