Johnson v. Veterans Affairs Medical Center
133 F. Supp. 3d 10
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Charles Johnson, Jr. sued the Veterans Affairs Medical Center and four unnamed staff for torts arising from a November 13, 2011 inpatient search of his belongings and person.
- Johnson alleged the search involved crossing privacy and decency lines, including intrusions during a bed and person search by a female nurse among the staff.
- He filed suit in the DC Superior Court in 2014; the Medical Center removed to federal court and moved to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds.
- The Center argued FTCA sovereignty waiver does not apply because (i) sovereign immunity was not waived, (ii) the alleged acts did not involve acts within the scope of employment, and (iii) FTCA excludes certain intentional torts.
- The Court treated the motion as a Rule 12(b)(1) challenge to jurisdiction, given sovereign immunity as a jurisdictional issue, and granted dismissal for failure to name the United States as the proper defendant.
- The Court sua sponte granted Johnson leave to amend to substitute the United States as defendant under the FTCA and to plead whether employees acted within or outside the scope of employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the FTCA waive sovereign immunity for these claims? | Johnson contends FTCA applies and waives immunity. | Center argues FTCA does not waive immunity because United States not named and acts may be outside scope or exempted. | FTCA waiver not satisfied; United States must be named; dismissal granted. |
| Who is the proper defendant under the FTCA for torts by federal employees? | Johnson can sue the Medical Center or employees directly. | Under FTCA, the United States is the only proper defendant. | If employees within scope, suit must name United States; if outside scope, employees could be liable, but in this case the Medical Center action remains not properly before the Court. |
| Were the four Does 1–4 acting within or outside the scope of employment, affecting FTCA applicability? | Johnson asserts actions were within employment scope. | The scope issue governs whether FTCA applies to waivers and substitution. | Court assumes within scope for purposes of analysis; however, the FTCA still requires the United States as defendant. |
| Does the FTCA bar liability for intentional tort claims arising from the VA employees' conduct? | Johnson pleads tort claims including assault and privacy invasion; some argue FTCA exclusions apply. | FTCA waives immunity only for certain torts; intentional torts may be excluded. | Court does not reach this issue; dismissed on jurisdictional grounds first. |
| Is service of unnamed defendants proper in a potential FTCA action? | Unnamed Does could be served individually if outside scope. | If sued in personal capacity, must be properly served; otherwise not before court. | If pursued against individuals, proper service is required; FTCA path remains to substitute United States. |
Key Cases Cited
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity is jurisdictional; waiver must be unequivocally expressed)
- United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807 (1976) (FTCA provides the exclusive remedy for certain federal torts)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (clarifies standards for Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional dismissal)
- Tri-State Hosp. Supply Corp. v. United States, 341 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (FTCA waiver burdens on plaintiff; six elements of actionable FTCA claim)
- Cureton v. U.S. Marshal Serv., 322 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2004) (FTCA waivers and proper party defendant considerations)
- United States v. Philip Morris, Inc., 116 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D.D.C. 2000) (liberal construing of complaint in context of jurisdictional review)