DANIELS v. DEPART OF THE ARMY
1:14-cv-00728
M.D.N.C.Oct 28, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Althea Allen Daniels alleges she was injured in an automobile collision on November 28, 2011, when a vehicle driven by Army Staff Sgt. Antonio Jasinski struck her van at a BP gas station in Winston‑Salem, NC.
- Complaint names the Department of the Army, Antonio Jasinski, and James Luevano; seeks $56,998.58 in medical expenses and pain and suffering.
- Plaintiff filed various attachments (sworn statement, accident report forms, letters) but the complaint itself contains few factual allegations and none showing Luevano’s involvement.
- Plaintiff apparently provided a sworn statement to the Army on August 22, 2014—well over two years after the accident—and did not allege a timely agency claim denial under the FTCA.
- The complaint contains no facts showing Jasinski was acting within the scope of his federal employment (the “line of duty”), a jurisdictional requirement for FTCA liability under North Carolina respondeat superior principles.
- Court granted in forma pauperis status for the limited purpose of recommending dismissal and recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FTCA claim is barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Plaintiff relies on her sworn statement and attachments as having presented her claim to the Army | Army argues plaintiff did not present a timely administrative claim or receive a final denial within the FTCA deadlines | Dismissed: Plaintiff did not allege timely presentation or denial; FTCA exhaustion is jurisdictional so court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether Jasinski was acting within the scope of employment (line of duty) | Plaintiff implies Jasinski was a federal employee and uses a federal vehicle accident form to infer scope | Government requires factual showing that Jasinski acted in furtherance of Army duties at the time; vehicle ownership alone insufficient | Dismissed: Complaint lacks facts to infer line‑of‑duty conduct; scope‑of‑employment is jurisdictional and absent here |
| Whether Plaintiff stated a claim against Sgt. Luevano | Plaintiff alleges an Army employee lied to Luevano about the accident | No facts tie Luevano to the accident or any wrongful act | Dismissed: No plausible allegations against Luevano; claim fails to state a claim |
| Whether case is frivolous / subject to dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B) | Plaintiff seeks relief for medical expenses and pain/suffering based on accident | Court evaluates legal sufficiency, jurisdictional defects, and IFP screening standards | Recommended dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous/failing to state a claim due to jurisdictional defects and insufficient factual allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) (purpose of IFP statute and access to courts)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolousness standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; legal conclusions insufficient)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Dolan v. United States, 546 U.S. 481 (2006) (FTCA covers auto accidents by federal employees acting within scope)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (FTCA administrative exhaustion is jurisdictional)
- Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2009) (FTCA plaintiff must establish employee acted within scope of employment to confer jurisdiction)