517 F. App'x 664
11th Cir.2013Background
- Gibbs, a disbarred former attorney proceeding pro se, sued the United States, various agencies, and Does 1-100 over FECA benefits, DOD retaliation, DOL negligence, alleged conspiracies, and RICO.
- He alleges overpayment and a telephonic pre-recoupment hearing under FECA, with a notification and opportunity for a hearing.
- Gibbs contends DOD retaliated after his complaints about fund misuse; he also claims DOL failed to protect him.
- Conspiracy and RICO theories are tied to Gibbs’s representation of William H. Johnson’s estate and related art cases.
- The district court struck Gibbs’ initial pleadings as shotgun and later dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, and stayed a case management report; Gibbs appeals.
- Gibbs sought to amend but was denied; the court stayed the case management report pending its dismissal ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over FECA claims | Gibbs argues district court had jurisdiction over FECA issues. | Defendants contend FECA decisions are not generally reviewable and subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. | District court properly dismissed FECA claims for lack of jurisdiction. |
| CSRA retaliation claim jurisdiction | Gibbs asserts DOD retaliation claims are reviewable. | CSRA provides exclusive remedies; no judicial review. | Court lacked jurisdiction; CSRA remedies are exclusive. |
| FTCA exhaustion requirement | Gibbs contends government negligence claims should proceed. | FTCA requires exhaustion; Gibbs did not exhaust administrative remedies. | FTCA claim dismissed for failure to exhaust. |
| Rule 12(b)(6) sufficiency of conspiracy and RICO claims | Gibbs argues conspiracy and RICO theories against various officials. | Allegations are threadbare and fail to state plausible claims. | Conspiracy and RICO claims dismissed for lack of plausible pleading. |
Key Cases Cited
- Noble v. U.S., 216 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2000) (FECA authority and limited review of OWCP decisions)
- Woodruff v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation Program, 954 F.2d 634 (11th Cir. 1992) (OWCP decisions generally not subject to judicial review)
- Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2004) (courts sua sponte assess subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Dalrymple v. United States, 460 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must show facial plausibility, not mere recitals)
- Avirgan v. Hull, 932 F.2d 1572 (11th Cir. 1991) (elements for civil RICO claims)
- Ferry v. Hayden, 954 F.2d 658 (11th Cir. 1992) (CSRA exclusive remedies bar certain challenges)
- Turner ex rel. Turner v. United States, 514 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2008) (pre-trial management discretion and stay rulings)
- Hall v. United Ins. Co. of America, 367 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of leave to amend)