Bullock v. Hana Security Services
Civil Action No. 2022-2608
| D.D.C. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Michael Bullock was fired from his security guard job for alleged bullying and threats and was subsequently reported by his employer to the Federal Protective Service (FPS), a division of the Department of Homeland Security.
- FPS determined Bullock was unfit to work as a security guard in federal buildings after he failed to respond to their inquiry within a 15-day deadline.
- Bullock lost another security job as a result of this fitness determination.
- Bullock appealed FPS's suitability determination and provided supporting statements from coworkers but received a conclusory rejection letter from FPS.
- Bullock sued, alleging various torts and administrative wrongdoing under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- FPS moved to dismiss the tort claims for lack of jurisdiction and sought summary judgment on the APA claim; Bullock cross-moved for summary judgment on the APA issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over tort claims under FTCA | Exhaustion was satisfied before amended complaint | Jurisdiction lacking because initial claim was unexhausted | No jurisdiction; cannot cure by amendment |
| Arbitrary/capricious agency action under APA | FPS provided no reasoned explanation for decision | Agency acted properly in upholding the decision | FPS decision arbitrary/capricious under APA |
| Consideration of new evidence on appeal | FPS was required to evaluate all relevant evidence | (No separate defense detailed in opinion for this issue) | FPS failed to show it considered new evidence |
| Remedy for APA violation | Suitability decision should be reversed or reconsidered | (Standard practice to remand to agency for reconsideration) | Remand to agency for APA-compliant review |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts have limited jurisdiction and dismissal is required if lacking)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (agency decisions must be product of reasoned decisionmaking)
- Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (agency must articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (FTCA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies)
- GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901 (requirements for FTCA exhaustion)
- Sloan v. HUD, 236 F.3d 756 (scope and exceptions of FTCA waiver of sovereign immunity)
- Fox v. Clinton, 684 F.3d 67 (judicial deference to agency's technical expertise)
- Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (material and genuine issues in summary judgment)