Ten thousand months is 833 y ear s and 4 months. 1 UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
KEVI N MI L L EN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action No. 08-0113 ( EGS) : UN I TE D ST AT ES A TT OR NE Y’ S : OFFI CE FOR

THE DI S TR I CT OF : COLUMBIA, : : De fe nd ant. :
MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Plaintiff, proce edingin forma pa uperis, filed a

pro se c omplaint ag ainst the defe ndant. Th e de fe nd ant h a s f

ile d a mot ion to d ism iss , a

nd the pla int if

f h a s f ile d h is r e sp on se s. B e c a

us e the def endant is immune from a

suit such as this one, the complaint will be dismissed for lac k of subject matter jur isdiction. The plaintiff f

iled a civil ac tion ag ainst the defe ndant on J anuar y 16, 2009 in Superior Court for the District of

Columbi a. The defe ndant, as a fede ral de fenda

nt, removed the complaint to this court. The complaint asse rts a cla im for def amation. In its entirety , the
c omp la int a lle g e s th at “ [t] attor

ne y of fi c e ha s th e e xac t pa

pe rw or k a nd the y put ma lic iou s li e s in the pape rs about me ( Kevin Mullen). The se people could have stopped the pape r but allowed them to write these vic ious lies.” Compl. at 1. As damag es, the plaintiff $10 million “plus 9,000 a month for 10,000 months.” Id. Amongthe exhibit s appende d to the complaint is a copy of an 1 Associate Pre ss story

dated Nove mber 11, 1998, statingthat the plaintiff, “who playedAs a motion to strike, this mot ion was denie d. Howeve r, the substanc e of the 2 submissi on was take n into consideration in re achingthis decision. -2- [basketball] for Ge org etown fr om 1991 to 1995, was arr aig ned . . . followinghis arre st on char g es of unlaw ful entry . . . said . . . a spokesma

n for the U .S. Attorney ’s Off ice f or the District
o f Co lumb ia
. ” Co mp l. E x. The de fenda

nt has moved to dismiss t he complaint on multiple gr ounds, including that the fe dera l defe ndant is immune from this suit
. See De f. ’s Me m. i n Su pp or t of De f. ’s Mo t. t o Dismiss (“Def

.’s Mem.”) at 3-5. The plaintiff has filed two “ motions t o strike,” e ach of which will be considere d here as a r esponse to the de fenda nt’s motion. See Pl.’s Moti on to Strike, May 29, 2009; J une 16, 2009.

2 It is well-settled that, as sover eig n, the fe dera l gove rnment is subject to suit only insofar as it has conse nted to suit. F.D.I.C. v. M eye r, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (“ Absent a w aiver , so ve re ign immun ity

sh ie lds the F e de ra l G ov e rnme nt a nd its a g e nc ie s f

ro m su it. ” ). Withc e rt a in exceptions, the fede ral g overnme nt has consente d to suit under the Fe dera l Tort Claims Act (“ F TCA ” ), 28 U. S.C. §§ 13 46 (b ), 24 01 (b ), 26 71 – 2 68 0, fo r a c ts o r o mis sio ns tha t w ou ld constitute torts at common law. 28 U.S.C. § 2674. One of those e x ceptions, howe ver, is for defa mation suits aga inst feder al prosec utors. See28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) (exceptingdefa mation from the pr ovisions of the Fe dera l Tort Claims Act). Whil e the F TCA’s exception for defa mation does not shield “investig ative or la w enf orce ment office rs of the United States Gover nment” fr om a def

amation suit, a fede ral prose cutor pe rfor ming duties a s spokesman for the U.S. Attorney ’s Off

ice in re portingan ar

raignment to the press is ac ting in his role a s prosec utor, not as an investig ative or la w enf orce ment office r for

purposes of the FTCA. Mo ore-3-

v. United States, 213 F.3d 705, 710 ( D.C. Cir. 2000) (dete rmining that the fede ral prose cutor wa s “not an investig ative or la w enf orce ment office r” f

or purpose s of § 2680(h)) ; seeTrupei v. United States, 304 Fe d. Appx. 776, 784 (11th C ir. 2008) (a ffirmingdistrict court’s de termination that prosec utors wer e not “investig ative or la w enf orce ment office rs” within the mea ning of the § 2 68 0( h) ); Bernard v. U

nited States , 2 5 F .3 d 9 8, 10 4 ( 2d Cir . 1 99 4) (s tatin gthat “ the F TCA does not authorize suits for intentional torts based upon the a ctions of Gover nment prosec utors”). There fore , the def

endant in this action is immune from a damag es ac tion for the cla im asserted, and the c omplaint will be dism issed for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction. A sepa rate order acc ompanies this memorandum opinion.

/ s / EMMET G. SUL L IVAN Da t e: J u l y

2 , 2 0 0 9 Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge