Richardson v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
248 F. Supp. 3d 91
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Edward Richardson, a former Board of Governors Law Enforcement Unit officer (employed June 8, 2009–terminated July 7, 2010), alleges removal and improper disclosure of medical and phone records and insertion of a falsified suspension notice in his personnel file, which he says caused his termination and ongoing unemployment.
- He filed multiple pro se suits; this case (filed May 9, 2016) is his third related action and the operative pleading is the Second Amended Complaint alleging Privacy Act, FOIA, No FEAR Act, FIRREA/whistleblower, APA, FTCA, and Fifth Amendment due-process claims (Counts One–Eleven).
- Key factual allegations: 22 medical documents were removed from his file; cellphone records were obtained and shared without his knowledge; Kevin May sent personnel documents to the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission; James McCoy sent a mass email with medical documents; a Notice of Suspension appeared in his file though Richardson contends it was falsified.
- Procedural posture: Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court dismissed most claims, denied dismissal as to two Privacy Act counts (disclosure to Maryland Commission and cellphone-records dissemination) without prejudice, and dismissed the FTCA, FOIA, APA, FIRREA/whistleblower, and Fifth Amendment claims.
- Statute-of-limitations and jurisdictional issues (FTCA exhaustion; Privacy Act two-year limitations) are central to the Court’s disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTCA claims — exhaustion | Richardson contends FTCA claims were exhausted when he amended after agency denial | Defendants: FTCA requires administrative exhaustion before suit; original filing lacked FTCA claims | Dismissed for failure to exhaust; timing defect not cured by later amendment (jurisdictional) |
| Res judicata / claim preclusion | Richardson contends new theories revive previously raised facts | Defendants: prior case resolved identical claims on merits | Dismissal applies to Count Four (identical Privacy Act claim) because prior case resolved it on the merits; other like claims were not precluded because prior dismissals were jurisdictional |
| Privacy Act — removal of medical documents (Count One) | Tolling: discovery in 2014 of additional missing documents resets limitations | Defendants: cause of action accrued in 2010; no willful misrepresentation to toll | Dismissed as untimely — claim accrued in 2010 and no adequate tolling alleged |
| Privacy Act — disclosure to Maryland Commission (Count Two) | Richardson: disclosure to Maryland Commission was improper/non-routine use | Defendants: disclosure falls within published routine-use exception and Mr. May acted in scope of employment | Not dismissed — Court found defendants failed to show disclosure was a compatible routine use; claim survives (denied without prejudice) |
| Privacy Act — mass-email disclosure (Count Three) | Richardson alleges mass email disclosed medical records in May 2010 | Defendants: untimely | Dismissed as untimely (accrued May 14, 2010) |
| Privacy Act — cellphone records (Count Six) | Richardson claims records secretly obtained in 2010–11 and he discovered in 2014; alleges secretive/willful conduct for tolling | Defendants: untimely/no tolling | Not dismissed — Court declined to resolve timeliness given alleged secretive acquisition; claim survives (denied without prejudice) |
| FOIA claims | Richardson asserts FOIA exemptions protect his privacy | Defendants: FOIA governs public access to agency records, not individual privacy; no FOIA request was made | Dismissed — FOIA claims not cognizable where plaintiff did not pursue FOIA procedures |
| APA / No FEAR Act claim (Count Eight) | Richardson alleges Board failed to notify employees of whistleblower protections (No FEAR Act) and seeks APA review | Defendants: other statutes provide adequate remedies; No FEAR Act notice content follows regulation; no violation pleaded | Dismissed — APA not available for Privacy Act/FOIA claims; No FEAR claim inadequately pleaded against regulatory text provided on Board website |
| FIRREA whistleblower (12 U.S.C. §1831j) | Richardson disavows relying on FIRREA; cites No FEAR | Defendants: FIRREA claims (if asserted) are untimely | Dismissed as untimely if construed as FIRREA claim |
| Fifth Amendment due process | Richardson contends Ombudsman mischaracterized basis for termination, impairing his appeal | Defendants: sovereign immunity bars constitutional-tort suit against the United States | Dismissed — constitutional-tort claims barred by sovereign immunity (no waiver) |
Key Cases Cited
- Akinseye v. District of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (party asserting jurisdiction bears burden)
- Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (burden of proving jurisdictional facts)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1993) (FTCA administrative exhaustion is jurisdictional)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (Twombly pleading standard)