Emrit v. National Institutes of Health
157 F. Supp. 3d 52
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Ronald Emrit (pro se) and Nicole Leal‑Mendez sued NIH, CDC, FDA, and HHS alleging failure to diagnose/treat Leal‑Mendez’s purported parasitic infection and seeking $45 million plus specific drug treatment.
- Claims asserted: negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), ADA (construed as Rehabilitation Act), Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and constitutional violations (Equal Protection, Due Process, Privileges & Immunities).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); court instead examined subject‑matter jurisdiction and dismissed on that ground.
- Court found plaintiffs’ factual allegations legally tenuous and some claims frivolous; also held plaintiffs failed to exhaust FTCA administrative remedies for tort claims and lacked standing for employment/discrimination claims.
- Emrit claimed to be guardian ad litem but lacked proof and was not appointed; court noted Emrit may only represent himself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over tort claims (FTCA exhaustion) | Plaintiffs proceeded in federal court seeking tort damages for negligence and IIED | Plaintiffs failed to present administrative FTCA claims to agencies before suing; exhaustion is jurisdictional | Dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; FTCA claims unexhausted |
| Sovereign immunity for constitutional/tort/damages claims | Plaintiffs sought damages from federal agencies for constitutional and other harms | United States retains sovereign immunity absent waiver; constitutional damages/large non‑tort claims not waived | Claims for money damages against federal agencies barred absent waiver; dismissal upheld |
| Standing under Title VII and Rehabilitation Act | Plaintiffs invoked Title VII and ADA/Rehabilitation Act remedies for discrimination | Plaintiffs are not federal employees/applicants; alleged injuries not fairly traceable to defendants; ADA does not apply to federal government employers | Plaintiffs lack standing under Title VII and Rehabilitation Act; those claims dismissed |
| Applicability of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and constitutional claims against federal agencies | Plaintiffs asserted § 1983 and constitutional violations by federal agencies | § 1983 applies to actions under color of state law, not federal agencies; constitutional claims were baseless or frivolous | § 1983 and constitutional claims dismissed as inapplicable/frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir.) (federal courts must assure jurisdiction before reaching merits)
- Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (U.S.) (courts may dismiss claims that are "so attenuated and unsubstantial" as to be devoid of merit)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (U.S.) (limits on waiver of sovereign immunity and FTCA scope)
- Simpkins v. District of Columbia Government, 108 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir.) (FTCA exhaustion is jurisdictional)
- Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006 (D.C. Cir.) (patently insubstantial federal questions may be dismissed)
- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (U.S.) (standing requires injury fairly traceable and redressable)
- Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170 (U.S.) (Title VII requires plaintiff to be an "aggrieved" party within the statute's zone of interests)
- Redd v. Summers, 232 F.3d 933 (D.C. Cir.) (Rehabilitation Act structure and employment coverage)
- Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89 (D.C. Cir.) (sovereign immunity principles)
- James Madison Ltd. v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir.) (court's affirmative obligation to consider authority to hear disputes)