Doe v. United States
Civil Action No. 2020-3299
| D.D.C. | Jul 13, 2021Background:
- Plaintiff Jane Doe called DHS's VOICE hotline in April 2017 and, relying on representations of confidentiality and anonymity, disclosed information about her former husband and her own personal identifiers (phone, DOB, SSN).
- ICE allegedly posted detailed VOICE call logs to its website and DHS reportedly released Doe's identifying information in response to FOIA requests, prompting Doe's FTCA suit filed October 30, 2020; Doe conceded her Privacy Act claim in opposition.
- FTCA requires presentment of an administrative claim (written description enabling investigation plus a sum-certain) and exhaustion before suing; failure to exhaust is jurisdictional.
- Doe's counsel averred they prepared and mailed an SF-95 and related materials in April 2019 but could not produce a certified-mail return receipt or any proof DHS/ICE received the claim.
- DHS and ICE submitted declarations stating neither agency has a record of any FTCA administrative claim from Doe or her counsel.
- The court treated jurisdictional facts as a matter for record review (considering declarations beyond the complaint) and concluded Doe failed to prove agency receipt of an administrative claim.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTCA presentment/exhaustion | Counsel mailed a written SF-95 in April 2019, satisfying FTCA presentment | Agencies have no record of any FTCA claim from Doe; no proof agency received claim | Dismissed FTCA for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Doe failed to show agency receipt |
| Jurisdictional discovery | Discovery could show mail mishandling or individualized agency treatment and thus presentment | Agencies searched their records where such a claim would appear; no basis to suspect searches were inadequate | Denied; no good-faith basis that discovery would uncover proof of presentment |
| Use of extrinsic evidence on jurisdiction | Complaint alleges exhaustion; plaintiff relies on counsel affidavits | Defendant offered agency declarations showing no record; court may examine materials beyond the complaint | Court appropriately considered record evidence and declarations when resolving Rule 12(b)(1) challenge |
| Privacy Act claim | Plaintiff initially asserted Privacy Act claim | Plaintiff conceded the Privacy Act claim in opposition; defendant moved to dismiss | Privacy Act claim dismissed by concession |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction; presumption against jurisdiction)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (FTCA bars suit until administrative claim is presented)
- GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (FTCA presentment requires written description enabling agency investigation and a sum-certain)
- Am. Nat. Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (court may assume truth of allegations but may examine record to resolve jurisdictional facts)
- Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 429 F.3d 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (courts may investigate facts beyond the complaint to assure subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Davis v. United States, 944 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D.D.C. 2013) (attorney affidavit of mailing is insufficient without proof agency actually received the FTCA claim)
- Mensah-Yawson v. Raden, 170 F. Supp. 3d 222 (D.D.C. 2016) (dismissing FTCA claim where plaintiff did not establish presentment to the agency)