Cunningham v. Wright
Civil Action No. 2021-0187
| D.D.C. | Jul 13, 2021Background
- Plaintiff William T. Cunningham sued Zachary Wright, an EEOC administrative law judge, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and constitutional violations.
- The case was removed to federal court with a Westfall Act certification, substituting the United States as the proper defendant for common-law tort claims.
- The court concluded the FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity for Cunningham’s tort claim because it arises from alleged misrepresentation/deceit under the misrepresentation exception to the FTCA.
- Cunningham failed to exhaust FTCA administrative remedies, depriving the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The claim was also barred by res judicata because a prior, nearly identical suit (Cunningham I) was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and Cunningham did not cure those defects.
- Cunningham’s individual-capacity Fifth Amendment and §1983 claims were dismissed because ALJs have absolute immunity for judicial acts and because Cunningham failed to serve Wright with process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the United States is the proper defendant and whether the FTCA waives sovereign immunity for the tort claim | Cunningham alleges Wright lied and engaged in judicial misconduct; seeks to proceed on a common-law tort against Wright (official capacity) | Westfall Act certification makes the United States the defendant; FTCA immunity barred because claim arises from misrepresentation/deceit | The United States is the proper defendant and FTCA does not waive immunity under the misrepresentation exception; claim dismissed |
| Whether failure to exhaust FTCA administrative remedies deprives the court of jurisdiction | Cunningham proceeded to court without completing administrative FTCA claims | FTCA requires exhaustion; plaintiff has not exhausted | Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under McNeil; claim dismissed |
| Whether the claim is precluded by res judicata based on prior dismissal in Cunningham I | Cunningham did not identify any cure of previously identified jurisdictional defects | Earlier dismissal on jurisdictional grounds precludes relitigation of the same jurisdictional issue | Claim barred by res judicata; dismissed |
| Whether Cunningham’s individual-capacity Fifth Amendment and §1983 claims can proceed | Cunningham asserts constitutional claims against Wright individually | Wright (as ALJ) is absolutely immune for judicial acts; plaintiff also failed to serve Wright | Claims dismissed for absolute judicial immunity and for failure to serve process |
Key Cases Cited
- Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007) (discusses substitution of the United States as defendant under the Westfall Act)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (FTCA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before suit)
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985) (absolute immunity applies to administrative law judges performing judicial acts)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (establishes scope of official-immunity principles for government officials)
- GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction precludes relitigation of the jurisdictional issue)