1 UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) J AMES DOW VANDIVERE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ il A c tio n N o. 09 -0 17 6 ( EG S) ) FED ERALBU REAU OF PRI SONS, e t al

. , ) ) De fe nd ants . ) )
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION This matter is befor e the Court on def endants’ Motion to Dismiss and plaintiff’s Motion Se e kin g L e ave fo r C on tin ua nc e . T he Court

wi ll g ra nt d e fe nd ant’ s mo tio n in

pa rt , d ism iss plaintiff’s cla im under the F eder al Tort Claims Act, deny plaintiff’s motion for a c ontinuance, and g rant plaintiff a

n extension of tim e to file his opposition or other re sponse to the re maining arguments raised in de fenda nts’ motion.

I . BA CKGROUND Plaintiff, a fe dera l prisoner, bring s this action ag ainst the United States, the F eder al B ur e a u o f P ri so ns (“ B OP” ), and B OP’ s D ir e c tor , H arl e y

L a pp in, and his c a us e of a c tio n a ro se from an inc ident which occ urre d on Dec ember 9, 2007. Compl. at 1. “[W ]hi le in the custody of the Fe dera l Bure au of Prisons, locate d in BigSpring, Te x as, a low se curity Fe dera l Corrictional [si c] I nstitut ion, plaintiff was one of at lea st 57 inmates who was attacked by an estimated 240 inmates, all believe d to be of illeg al Mexican orig in.” Id. Plaintiff “was hit in the fa ce w ith a2

co mb i n at i o nl o cki na s o ck , cau s i n g h em o rrh age i n g [ s i c] fr o mb o thn o s tri l s , an d cau s i n g d am age to his nose that will have long term ef fec ts,” that he “ was kicke d in his ribs on his right side” with such forc e that his “195 pound body was knoc ked out of his bed onto the c oncre te floor,” and that, whe n order ed by an assa ilant to leave the housingunit, he “had to g o throug h a g auntlet of at lea st 30 more inmates who a lso struck him severa l times all over his body while he wa s making his way

to the exit .” Id. at 2. Acc ording to plaintiff, he sustained injuries dur ing the attack r esulting in pa in, discomfort, periodic nig htmares, a nd anxiety
. Id. at 2-3. In addition, he “lost important and eve n some irre place able pe rsonal prope rty .” Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleg es that B OP staff kne w of the pla nned attac k wee ks befor e it occur red, a nd that staff me mbers neg lige ntly failed to c onduct an investig ation or otherw ise to preve nt the
a tta c k f ro m takin g pla c e . Co mpl . at 4- 5. He fu rt he r a lle g e s th a t B OP’ s D ir e c tor “ sh ou ld b e he ld
acc ountable for

his staffs [sic] neg lige nce that failed to pre vent the assa ult upon the plaintiff.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff “see ks compensation for the phy sical pain, suff

eringand mental a

ng uish he had to endure in the amount of $ 100,000.00,” a s well as injunctive re lief “to pre vent any reta liation from the de fenda

nt or his staff.” Id. at 8.

I I . DI SCUS SI ON A. The Cou rt W ill Di sm iss Plain tif

f’ s FTCA Cla im “It is ax iomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the exis tence of conse nt is a prer equisite for jurisdiction.” Un ite d S tates v . M itc he ll , 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). Such c onsent may not be implied, but mustbe “une quivocally expressed.” United States v. Nordic Village, Inc ., 50 3 U .S. 30 , 3 3- 34 (1 99 2) . So ve re ig n immun ity e xten ds to g overnme ntal ag encie s and to their employ ees where such employ ees a re sue d in their offic ial“Of ficial c apac ity

suits . . . gene rally

repr esent only

another way of plea ding a

n 1 a c tio n a g a ins t an e nti ty

of wh ic h a n o ff ic e r i s a n a g e nt, ” su c h th a t “ an o ff ic ia l c a pa c ity su it i s, in all respe cts other than na

me, to be tre ated a s a suit ag ainst the entity .” Kentucky v. Graham , 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985). The Court presumes that Ha rley L appin is sued both in his official and individual capac ities, and treats any claim ag ainst L appin in his official c apac ity as if it wer e b r o u g h ta g a i n s tth e U n i t e d S t a t e s d i r e c t l y. 3 c a pa c iti e s. Se e Cla rk

v . Li brar yof C on gr ess , 750 F.2d 89, 102- 04 (D.C. Cir. 1984). 1 The F eder al Tort Claims Act (“ FTCA” ), see28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq. , o pe ra te s a s a limit ed wa iver of sove reig n immunit y , rende ring the United States ame nable to suit for c erta in, but not all, tort claims. See, e .g., Richards v. United States , 369 U.S. 1, 6 (1962). Unde r the F TCA , th e “ Un ite d St a te s sh a ll b e lia ble [fo r t or

t c la ims ] in the same mann e r a nd to t he same
e xtent a s a

pr ivate ind ivi du a l un de r l ike c ir c ums tanc e s. ” 28 U. S.C. § 2 67 4( a ). Re le va nt t o th is
case is the provision authorizing a suit ag ainst the United States “f or injury of loss of prope rty , or persona l injury

or death case d by

the neg lige nt act or omission of any employ ee of

the Gover nment while ac ting within the scope of his office or employ ment, under c ircumstance s wher e the United States, if a private pe rson, would be liable to the [individual] in acc ordanc e wi th t he law o f t

he pla c e wh e re the a c t or

omi ssi on oc c ur re d. ” 28 U. S.C. § 1 34 6( b) (1 ); see28 U.S.C. § 2674(a). The F TCA bars a

plaintiff from br inginga civil ac tion ag ainst the United States for money damag es in district court bef ore he has exhausted her

administrative re medies. See McNeil v. U

nited States , 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). A plaintiff satisfies the exhaustion require ment afte r he pr esents his claim to the appr opriate f eder al ag ency , and the a g ency either denies the c laim in writing or f ails to make a f

inal dispositi on within six months after4

prese ntment. See28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Plaintiff has ac knowledg ed his failure to exhaust hi s administrative reme dies under the FTCA pr ior to filing this ac tion. SeeMot. Seeking L eave for Continuance at 1. The Cler k of Court rec eived his complaint on De cembe r 31, 2008, and of ficially dockete d the pleadingon J anuar y 30, 2009. SeeCompl. at 1 (date stamps). Plaintiff submitted his FTCA claim to the BO P on or about May

27, 2009. SeeMot. Seeking L eave for Continuance , Attach. ( Claim for Damag e, Injury

or De ath sig ned 5/27/09). As the Supre me Court held in Mc Ne il , jurisdiction
un d er FT C A m u s tb e e s t ab l i s h edatth e t i m e t h e c o mp l ai n ti s fi l ed ; i tca n n o tb e a cqu i re d th ro u gh the passag e of time. Mc

Ne il , 508 U.S. at 112-113. Ex haustion of administrative re medies is a jurisdictional pre requisite. See G AF Corp. v. United States , 8 18 F .2 d 9 01 , 9 17 -2 0 ( D. C. C ir . 1 98 7) . Pl a int if f’ s f a ilure to e xha

us t hi s administrative re medies under the FT CA befor e filing this action deprives the Court of subject
matte r j ur isd ic tio n. Ac c or din g ly , th e Court wi ll g ra nt d e fe nd ants ’ m oti on

in p art and wi ll d ism iss plaintiff’s F TCA claim for la ck of subjec t matter jurisdiction.

B. TheCou rt D e

fe rs C on sid e ra tio n o f D e fe nd an ts’ Re ma ini ng

Ar gu me nts Th e Court

se t July 17 , 2 00 9 a s th e de a dli ne fo r p la int if f’ s o pp os iti on

or oth e r r e sp on se to defe ndants’ motion to dism iss. Pl aintiff propose d to “addr ess all other issues in [the] Gover nment[’] s [m otion] . . . i.e.[,] immunit y [,] jurisdiction[ ,] etc.” af ter the a dminist rative resolution of his FTCA c laim. Mot. S eekingL eave for Continuance at 2. Plaintiff’s proposal is not appropr iate in light of the re solution of the FTCA cla im, and the Court declines to tre at the def endants’ motion as c oncede d at this tim e. Instead, the Court will gr ant plaintiff an e x tension of time, to Aug ust 28, 2009, to file his opposit ion or other5

re sp on se to t

he re ma ini ngargume nts se t f or th i n d e fe nd ants ’ m oti on

to d ism iss . I f p la int if

f f a ils to file a timely

opposition, t he Court may treat the balanc e of the motion as conce ded. L CvR 7(b). An Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.
Signed: EMMET G. SUL L I VAN

Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge Dated: J uly

30, 2009