NOT FOR PUBLICATION CLOSED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

RONALD BASS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,

 Defendants.

Civil Action No.:11-1071 (JLL)

OPINION AND ORDER

LINARES, District Judge

Pro se Plaintiff Ronald Bass commenced the instant action on February 24, 2011 against

Defendants United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department

of Justice, Inspector General Offices, Social Security Administration, Drug Enforcement

Administration, Immigration and Naturalization Service (collectively, the “Agency Defendants”)

and the State of New Jersey seeking damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28

U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2401(b), 2671-80. As a procedural matter, the Department of Health and

Human Services received Plaintiff’s administrative complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act

on August 13, 2010. On August 23, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services denied

the claim for failure to specify negligent actions by the agency’s employees. Plaintiff’s request

for reconsideration was also denied by letter dated October 6, 2010. There is no indication that

Plaintiff presented administrative claims to the other Agency Defendants.

Although Plaintiff’s recitation of the facts is somewhat muddled, Plaintiff appears to

allege that he was previously the subject of criminal investigations by the State and federal

Case 2:11-cv-01071-JLL-MAH Document 30 Filed 09/08/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 450
governments. Plaintiff alleges that the charges brought against him were false and were

ultimately dismissed. While Plaintiff was jailed, he contends that he was injected with a harmful

substance, causing him injuries. Plaintiff alleges that he was injured on State and/or federal

government property on or about February 1991, April 5, 1991, and November 2002. Plaintiff

believes that certain unspecified defendants had property and casualty insurance, and therefore he

is a third party beneficiary entitled to insurance payments. He also appears to seek a court order

directing the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General to investigate unspecified civil

rights violations and misconduct by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug

Enforcement Administration. 

 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a complaint must contain a short plain statement of the

grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction and a plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief. From the pleading, the Court must be able to draw a reasonable inference that

the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50

(20092; Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n.3 (2007). Where the pleaded facts

do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the pleader is not

entitled to relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50.

Upon review of Plaintiff’s complaint, it is clear that Plaintiff has failed to provide any

plausible legal theory on which he may bring claims. Rather, Plaintiff’s factual allegations are

entirely unclear, and in part, incredible. For example, Plaintiff avers that in 2003 an Essex

County Superior Court Judge stated on the record that then President George W. Bush was

seeking Plaintiff’s conviction. He continues that the Essex County Judge and “Bob Dole

committed fraud on the Court under the collusion of [the Judge] and Bob Dole.” Bass further

alleges that the State and federal governments negligently hired employees who intentionally,

Case 2:11-cv-01071-JLL-MAH Document 30 Filed 09/08/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 451
willfully, and maliciously injured Plaintiff by omitting drug enforcement identification, and

manufacturing evidence for grand jury shopping. Plaintiff does not state when this occurred,

which drug enforcement identification plaintiff is referencing, why it should have been included

in what, where and by whom. 

Bass also contends that the “defendants in their individual official capacity” colluded to

stalk and falsely imprison Plaintiff. These unnamed employees supposedly committed assault,

battery, and medical malpractice by injecting Bass with a foreign substance while he was in

various county jails. Plaintiff omits the names, positions, and supervisory agencies of the

supposed wrongdoers, along with the location and dates of the incidents. In sum, Plaintiff’s

complaint is mere conjecture lacking sufficient plausible factual allegations to survive

Defendants’ Rule 8 challenge. 

Even if Plaintiff’s complaint could survive a Rule 8 screening, Plaintiff has failed to

establish that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. The United States of

America, as a sovereign, and its agencies are immune from suit unless they consent to be sued. 

United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). The FTCA — under which Plaintiff brings

suit — constitutes a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Livera v. First National State Bank

of New Jersey, 879 F.2d 1186, 1194 (3d Cir. 1989). Under the Act, the Government has

consented to be sued for “negligent or wrongful acts or omissions” of its employees acting within

the scope of their employment “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person,

would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission

occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The FTCA does not generally permit suit against the

government for intentional torts. 28 U.S.C. § 2680. Additionally, under the statute, federal

agencies may not be named as Defendants. 

Case 2:11-cv-01071-JLL-MAH Document 30 Filed 09/08/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 452
More significantly, a Plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a

complaint in district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2675. That claim must be presented to the appropriate

federal agency within two years after it accrued. Any claim presented after the two year period

will not satisfy the jurisdictional exhaustion requirement. Kieffer v. Vilk, 8 F. Supp. 387, 395-96

(D.N.J. 1998). 

In this case, all the Agency Defendants must be dismissed because federal agencies are

immune from suit. Further, even without immunity, Plaintiff’s claims appear to be time-barred

because the injuries he alleges occurred in 1991, 2002, and 2005 respectively. Thus, the latest he

could have filed an administrative claim would have been in 2007. Not withstanding his

administrative claim against the Department of Health and Human Services, Plaintiff has not

demonstrated that he exhausted his administrative remedies as to the other Agency Defendants. 

Consequently, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review this matter as it pertains to

the Agency Defendants.

Similarly, Plaintiff cannot brings claims against the State of New Jersey because they are

barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity bars States from being sued

without their consent. Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996). Sovereignty applies to

both state law claims and federal civil rights claims. Thus, as Plaintiff has not demonstrated that

the State has waived its sovereign immunity, his claim against the State of New Jersey must also

be dismissed. For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS on this 8th day of September, 2011

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice;

and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close the file in this matter.

Case 2:11-cv-01071-JLL-MAH Document 30 Filed 09/08/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 453
SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Jose L. Linares 

JOSE L. LINARES

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:11-cv-01071-JLL-MAH Document 30 Filed 09/08/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 454