Sai v. Department of Homeland Security
99 F. Supp. 3d 50
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiff Sai (pro se) alleges TSA/DHS improperly delayed responding to two administrative Rehabilitation Act complaints filed after alleged discriminatory screening at BOS and SFO; suit challenges agency handling of those grievances, not the screening events themselves.
- Plaintiff filed an early partial summary judgment motion on the claim that DHS/TSA violated 6 C.F.R. § 15.70(d) by failing to respond within 180 days; Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and filed a Section 517 statement of interest and Westfall-related certification.
- Plaintiff has filed numerous procedural motions; the Court found motion practice proliferated and caused confusion about briefing and discovery status.
- Defendants moved to stay the Rule 26(f) conference and discovery pending resolution of threshold dispositive motions; Plaintiff sought discovery, interlocutory certification, and other relief.
- The Court stayed discovery and the Rule 26(f) conference nunc pro tunc to Feb. 18, 2015, treated paragraphs 1–63 of Plaintiff’s affidavit as undisputed for summary judgment purposes, denied many procedural requests (including interlocutory certification, FTCA stay, counsel disqualification), and set a consolidated briefing schedule for the motion to dismiss and partial summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery and Rule 26(f) conference should proceed while threshold dispositive motions are pending | Sai: Discovery limited and targeted; needed to oppose motions and summary judgment; defendants delayed confer duties | DHS/TSA: Stay appropriate because motion to dismiss and summary judgment may be dispositive and define scope of discovery | Stay granted; Rule 26(f) conference and all discovery stayed pending resolution of motion to dismiss and partial summary judgment |
| Whether Plaintiff may immediately obtain judicial notice/relief based on agency’s later response to one administrative complaint | Sai: Agency’s subsequent response does not moot claims; seeks fees/costs as prevailing party and asks Court to take judicial notice | Defs: Voluntary agency action does not make plaintiff a prevailing party; fee claim premature; mootness and ripeness concerns for new claims | Request to retain jurisdiction over administrative appeal denied; attorneys’ fees request denied without prejudice; Court will consider mootness in later briefing |
| Whether Plaintiff’s affidavit and Rule 56 process require immediate responses or concessions | Sai: Affidavit paragraphs 1–63 should be treated as undisputed and require immediate response under Rule 56(e) | Defs: Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 7(h); only limited facts are material; should be allowed to file responsive statement | Court treated dates of filings and non-response as undisputed and treated paras.1–63 as statement of material facts for LR 7(h); allowed Defendants to file a responsive statement |
| Whether the United States should be substituted under the Westfall Act and whether FTCA claims should be stayed while administrative claims are filed | Sai: United States should be joined/substituted for official-capacity defendants; requested stay for FTCA exhaustion | Defs: Acknowledge certification effects but argue substitution not necessary because of jurisdictional defects; FTCA claims unexhausted so suit improper | Court: Denied motion to substitute only officials (substitution, if applicable, extends to individual-capacity defendants); denied stay of FTCA claims and judicial notice of new administrative claim; parties to brief substitution and jurisdiction in dispositive briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (standard for pleading plausibility in threshold motions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standards and plausibility framework)
- Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) (district courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings)
- Chavous v. Dist. of Columbia Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt. Assistance Auth., 201 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2001) (stay of discovery pending dispositive motion can be appropriate to conserve resources)
- Institut Pasteur v. Chiron Corp., 315 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D.D.C. 2004) (staying discovery while dispositive motion pending may be warranted)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (to be a "prevailing party" for fee-shifting, a plaintiff generally needs judicial imprimatur)
- Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007) (Westfall Act substitution confers immunity to federal employees for acts within scope of employment)