Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00471/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00471-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIANNE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTHONY FOXX, SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-0471 JAM CKD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is pending before the court. The matter was submitted on 

the papers. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, and good cause appearing 

therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

In this action, plaintiff alleges claims arising out of her employment as an air traffic 

controller. Plaintiff asserts claims for employment discrimination, reprisal for participation in 

protected EEO activity, failure to accommodate plaintiff’s disability of high blood pressure, 

defamation and perjury. Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

plaintiff’s tort claims for defamation and perjury and plaintiff’s claim under the Rehabilitation 

Act for failure to accommodate plaintiff’s disability of high blood pressure.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a defendant to raise the defense, by 

motion, that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of an entire action or of specific 

Case 2:13-cv-00471-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 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

2

claims alleged in the action. “A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction may 

either attack the allegations of the complaint or may be made as a ‘speaking motion’ attacking the 

existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact.” Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 

594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979).

When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion attacks the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact, 

no presumption of truthfulness attaches to the plaintiff’s allegations. Thornhill Publ’g Co., 594 

F.2d at 733. “[T]he district court is not restricted to the face of the pleadings, but may review any 

evidence, such as affidavits and testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of 

jurisdiction.” McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988). When a Rule 

12(b)(1) motion attacks the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact, plaintiff has the burden 

of proving that jurisdiction does in fact exist. Thornhill Publ’g Co., 594 F.2d at 733.

Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff’s tort claims, contending these claims are barred 

because plaintiff failed to present an administrative tort claim to the FAA.1 The Federal Torts 

Claims Act (“FTCA”) provides the exclusive remedy for torts committed by federal employees, 

as alleged in this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b)(1); see Pereira v. U.S. Postal Serv., 964 F.2d 873, 

876 (9th Cir. 1992) (FTCA provides waiver of sovereign immunity only if such torts committed 

by private person would have given rise to liability under state law). Under the FTCA, an 

aggrieved party must timely file an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency 

before commencing litigation against the United States. See Blain v. United States, 552 F.2d 289 

(9th Cir. 1977); 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) (tort claim against United States barred 

unless presented in writing to appropriate Federal Agency within two years after claim accrues). 

This requirement is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. Marley v. United States, 548 F.3d 1286, 

1287 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Vacek v. United States Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 

2006) (exhaustion requirement jurisdictional and must be interpreted strictly). 

/////

 

1

 Defendant asserts three additional grounds for dismissal of the tort claims, all of which appear 

to be well taken. However, plaintiff’s failure to present an administrative claim is dispositive and 

the court need not reach defendant’s additional arguments.

Case 2:13-cv-00471-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 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

3

The declaration submitted by defendant in support of the motion to dismiss establishes

that plaintiff never presented an administrative tort claim. Garcia Decl. ¶ 4. In opposition to the 

pending motion, plaintiff does not contest defendant’s argument and presents no evidence that she 

timely presented a claim. The motion to dismiss plaintiff’s tort claims for defamation and perjury 

should therefore be granted.

Defendant also moves to dismiss plaintiff’s claim under the Rehabilitation Act for failure 

to accommodate plaintiff’s disability of high blood pressure. Defendant contends this claim 

should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to exhaust this 

claim through the EEO process. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a precondition to filing 

suit under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act. See Boyd v. United States Postal Serv., 752 F.2d 

410, 412-413 (9th Cir. 1985) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required ). To exhaust 

administrative remedies, plaintiff must first contact and consult with an EEO counselor at the 

agency within 45 days of the allegedly discriminating action. Cherosky v. Henderson, 330 F.3d 

1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 2003). After this consultation, the plaintiff must then file a formal complaint 

of discrimination with the agency. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.105(d), 1614.106(b). Although plaintiff 

filed an EEO complaint based on sex discrimination and reprisal in April 2004, she did not file an 

EEO complaint for failure to accommodate a disability. LaDuke Decl. ¶ 4.

In opposition, plaintiff contends that she pursued her discrimination claims through the 

grievance procedure provided under her union contract and that she requested reconsideration by

an Employee’s Compensation Appeals Board of the determination made in that grievance 

procedure. See 5 U.S.C. § 7121(d) (federal employee who alleges employment discrimination 

must elect to pursue claim under either a statutory procedure or a union-assisted negotiated 

grievance procedure; cannot pursue both avenues and election irrevocable). Plaintiff’s decision 

here to pursue her discrimination claim under the grievance procedure is irrevocable. See

Vinieratos v. Air Force, 939 F.2d 762, 768-769 (9th Cir. 1991). To exhaust administrative 

remedies through the negotiated grievance procedure, plaintiff must take the decision resulting 

from the grievance procedure to the Merit System Protection Board (“MPSB”) before seeking 

judicial review. See AFGE v. Reno, 992 F.2d 331, 333-336 (D.C. Cir. 1993); 5 U.S.C. § 7703. 

Case 2:13-cv-00471-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 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

4

Plaintiff adduces no evidence that she has exhausted the negotiated grievance by taking the 

grievance decision to the MPSB. Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish this court has subject 

matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act claim for failure to accommodate plaintiff’s 

disability of high blood pressure. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) be granted; 

2. Plaintiff’s tort claims for defamation and perjury and disability accommodation claim 

under the Rehabilitation Act be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

3. Plaintiff be granted thirty days after adoption of these findings and recommendations to 

file an amended complaint that does not include the claims dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Each allegation in the First Amended Complaint should be separately numbered in 

accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b); and

4. Defendant be granted thirty days to respond to the First Amended Complaint.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: November 22, 2013

4 smith-foxx0471.mtd

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-00471-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 4