Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

PAOLO SCHIANCHI, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

Civil Action No. 22-cv-156 (TSC)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION,

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 Plaintiff Paolo Schianchi brings this action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act 

(FTCA) against the United States of America and the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) for injuries he sustained when he fell while riding a scooter near the intersection of 

Constitution Avenue and Third Street, N.W. in Washington, D.C. Plaintiff claims that defects in 

the sidewalk caused his fall and that the sidewalk is maintained by the TSA.

1

 

Plaintiff alleges that he “presented” his claim to the TSA on or about March 4, 2021, but 

the agency failed to respond. Compl. § 12. However, Defendant has proffered declarations 

stating that neither the TSA or the General Services Administration have any record of a claim 

1

 Under the FTCA, “the United States is the only proper party defendant.” Cureton v. U.S. 

Marshal Serv., 322 F. Supp. 2d 23, 25 n.4 (D.D.C. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). 

 The USA indicates that it is unclear why the Plaintiff claims the TSA had a duty to maintain 

the sidewalk, as the area in which he was traveling is located near the Labor Department and the 

federal courthouse. Defs. Mot. to Dismiss at 3 n.1. 
Page 2 of 3

filed by Plaintiff, nor does the TSA have a claim filed by Plaintiff’s attorney. Defs. Ex. 1, 

Sherry Johnson Decl.; Defs. Ex. 2, Dawn Austin Decl. Accordingly, Defendant moves to 

dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). 

ECF No. 17. For the reasons set forth below, the court will GRANT the motion. 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Federal Rule 12(b)(1) 

Federal “Rule 12(b)(1) presents a threshold challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction and the 

Court is obligated to determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction in the first instance.” 

Curran v. Holder, 626 F. Supp. 2d 30, 32 (D.D.C. 2009) (cleaned up and citation omitted). “The 

party claiming subject matter jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating that such 

jurisdiction exists.” Stoddard v. Wynn, 68 F. Supp. 3d 104, 110 (D.D.C. 2014) (citing Khadr v. 

United States, 529 F.3d 1112, 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). 

B. FTCA

The United States is ordinarily immune from suit unless there is an explicit statutory 

waiver of its sovereign immunity. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (“Absent a 

waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agents from suit.”). 

“Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature.” Id. Therefore, “a claim barred by sovereign 

immunity lacks subject matter jurisdiction and may be dismissed under a 12(b)(1) motion.” 

Edwards v. United States, 211 F. Supp. 3d 234, 236 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing F.D.I.C., 510 U.S. at

475). “The FTCA operates as a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, rendering the United 

States amenable to suit for certain tort claims, subject to various exceptions,” not at issue here. 

Scruggs v. Bureau of Engraving & Printing, 200 F. Supp. 3d 78, 82 (D.D.C.) (citations omitted). 

However, under the FTCA, a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies, which “occurs once 
Page 3 of 3

a claimant has presented the appropriate federal agency with a claim describing the alleged 

injury with particularity and setting forth a ‘sum certain’ of damages, and the agency has (1) 

denied the claim in writing or (2) failed to provide a final disposition within six months of the 

claim’s filing.” Cureton, 322 F. Supp. 2d at 27 (citations omitted). 

II. ANALYSIS

Defendant filed its Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss on February 24, 2022. Under the 

court’s local rules, Plaintiff’s opposition was due fourteen days later, on March 10, 2022. See

LCvR 7(b). Plaintiff did not respond to the motion or seek an extension of the deadline. When 

an opposition “memorandum is not filed within the prescribed time, the Court may treat the 

motion as conceded.” Id. The Plaintiff having failed to respond to Defendant’s motion and 

proffer evidence that he exhausted his administrative remedies, the court finds that it lacks 

jurisdiction over his claims. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the court will GRANT Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

Date: May 10, 2022 

Tanya S. Chutkan 

TANYA S. CHUTKAN

United States District Judge