Court Opinion

ID: 9965249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 21:01:35.343096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:49.281482
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12023    Document: 14-1     Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12023
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       CONNIE ANDERSON,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
       FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
       TWANDA ROBINSON,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Alabama
USCA11 Case: 23-12023         Document: 14-1          Date Filed: 05/01/2024          Page: 2 of 5

       2                          Opinion of the Court                         23-12023

                         D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-00538-RDP
                              ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Connie Anderson appeals the district court’s dismissal of her
       pro se1 civil complaint alleging violations of the Federal Tort Claims
       Act (FTCA), the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and the
       Equal Protection Clause brought against the United States, the Fed-
       eral Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and one individual, Twanda
       Robinson. Anderson asserts the district court erroneously dis-
       missed her complaint because Robinson stalked her and the FBI
       declined to help her. After review, 2 we affirm.
                                          I. FTCA
             The FTCA does not create a substantive cause of action
       against the United States, but rather provides a mechanism by

       1 Pro se pleadings will be liberally construed. Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d

       1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). Nevertheless, pro se litigants are required to com-
       ply with applicable procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829
       (11th Cir. 2007). Further, the leniency afforded pro se litigants with liberal con-
       struction does not give the courts license to serve as de facto counsel or permit
       them to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.
       Campbell, 760 F.3d at 1168-69.
       2 We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a claim under Federal Rule

       of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), accepting the allegations in the complaint as true
       and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Am. United
       Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1056-57 (11th Cir. 2007).
USCA11 Case: 23-12023      Document: 14-1       Date Filed: 05/01/2024     Page: 3 of 5

       23-12023                Opinion of the Court                          3

       which a plaintiff may bring a state law tort action against the federal
       government in federal court. See Stone v. United States, 373 F.3d
       1129, 1130 (11th Cir. 2004). Under the FTCA, the United States is
       subject to liability in a tort action in the same manner, and to the
       same extent, that a private individual would be under the law of
       the place where the tort occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Im-
       portantly, “unless the facts support liability under state law, the dis-
       trict court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide an FTCA
       claim.” Ochran v. United States, 273 F.3d 1315, 1317 (11th Cir. 2001).
              Thus, claims involving federal law, such as federal tort
       claims, are not within the scope of the FTCA. McCollum v. Bolger,
       794 F.2d 602, 608 (11th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the FTCA authorizes
       suits against the United States, not its agencies. See 28 U.S.C.
       § 2679(a); F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476 (1994).
              The district court did not err in dismissing Anderson’s claims
       against the United States and the FBI. With respect to Anderson’s
       claims under the FTCA, this statute does not allow her to sue a
       federal agency or assert a claim premised on federal law. See Meyer,
       510 U.S. at 476; McCollum, 794 F.2d at 608. Because she named the
       FBI, a federal agency, in the instant suit, her claim against the FBI
       is improper. See Meyer, 510 U.S. at 476. Her claim against the
       United States also fails, as she did not cite any Alabama tort law in
       her amended complaint and the FTCA merely provides a mecha-
       nism by which a plaintiff may bring a state law tort action. See
       Stone, 373 F.3d at 1130. Accordingly, the district court did not err
USCA11 Case: 23-12023      Document: 14-1      Date Filed: 05/01/2024    Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12023

       in dismissing Anderson’s FTCA claims against the FBI and the
       United States.
                                     II. APA
              The APA generally authorizes judicial review of a final
       agency action. 5 U.S.C. § 702; Perez v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship &
       Immigr. Servs., 774 F.3d 960, 965 (11th Cir. 2014). The APA waives
       sovereign immunity “in actions against federal government agen-
       cies seeking nonmonetary relief if the agency conduct is itself sub-
       ject to judicial review.” Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762
       F.2d 1550, 1555 (11th Cir. 1985); see 5 U.S.C. § 702.
               Anderson’s claims under the APA similarly fail, as this stat-
       ute does not create a cause of action but, instead, authorizes judi-
       cial review of a final agency decision. See 5 U.S.C. § 702; Perez, 774
       F.3d at 965.
                              III. 18 U.S.C. § 1030
               18 U.S.C. § 1030 addresses “[f]raud and related activity in
       connection with computers” and provides a civil cause of action for
       “[a]ny person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation
       of this section . . . against the violator.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). How-
       ever, any such action must be brought within 2 years of the date of
       the complained-of act or of the date of discovery of the damage. Id.
             The court did not err in dismissing Anderson’s claims
       against Robinson because they were barred by 18 U.S.C. § 1030’s
       two-year statute of limitations. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). As alleged in
       Anderson’s complaint, the last of Robinson’s misconduct occurred
USCA11 Case: 23-12023     Document: 14-1     Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 5 of 5

       23-12023              Opinion of the Court                       5

       in December 2018 and she did not bring the instant suit until April
       2023. Thus, the court did not err in dismissing her claims against
       Robinson as untimely and we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.