Barnett v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 3d 515

Background

On April 17, 2013, Barnett tripped on an allegedly uneven public sidewalk near 845–857 Elkridge Landing Road (adjacent to USACE/NSA property) and suffered serious injuries.
Barnett sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and also sued Anne Arundel County, Beco (manager), and Holdings (property owner) for negligent sidewalk maintenance and failure to warn.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleged ownership/maintenance uncertainty and relied in part on an Anne Arundel County webpage about sidewalk repair; he did not identify any specific federal employee or specific government actions or directives causing the fall.
The Government moved to dismiss (Rule 12[b][1], 12[b][6]) arguing Barnett failed to allege negligence by a federal employee and thus the court lacks FTCA jurisdiction; the County moved to dismiss or for summary judgment asserting lack of notice of the defect.
The court found Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a negligent act or omission by a federal employee within the scope of employment (a prerequisite for FTCA jurisdiction), dismissed the FTCA claim for lack of jurisdiction, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice with leave to refile in state court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the FTCA provides jurisdiction for Barnett’s sidewalk-negligence claim	Barnett claims the U.S. (USACE/NSA) was responsible for maintenance and thus liable under the FTCA	The Government argues plaintiff pleaded no facts showing negligence by any federal employee acting within the scope of employment	Court: FTCA claim dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for failure to allege wrongful act/omission by a federal employee
Whether the Government owed a cognizable duty to maintain the specific sidewalk	Barnett relies on county webpage and general allegations that the Government/abutters were responsible	Government points to County Code and absence of facts showing county directed USACE/NSA or that federal employees breached a duty	Court: Even on the merits, plaintiff failed to plead facts to plausibly show government responsibility or breach; dismissal appropriate
Whether the County had notice or liability for the sidewalk defect	Barnett alleges failure to conduct routine maintenance and failure to warn (cones/barriers)	County asserts it had no actual/constructive notice and the County Code assigns DPW authority and only empowers DPW to direct abutters after notice	Court: Did not reach merits of County’s notice defense because federal claim was dismissed; state claims against County dismissed without prejudice
Whether the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims	Barnett’s state claims arise from same incident and he seeks to proceed in federal court	Defendants implicitly oppose exercising jurisdiction given the defective federal claim	Court: Declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the FTCA claim; state claims dismissed without prejudice with leave to refile in state court

Key Cases Cited

Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2009) (FTCA applies only to acts of federal employees; Rule 12(b)(1) considerations)
Welch v. United States, 409 F.3d 646 (4th Cir. 2005) (FTCA waiver strictly construed in favor of sovereign)
Williams v. United States, 50 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 1995) (narrow exceptions to FTCA waiver; jurisdictional dismissal appropriate)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim beyond speculative allegations)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (court need not accept legal conclusions or conclusory allegations as true)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (dismissal of federal claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction requires dismissal of pendent state claims absent independent jurisdiction)