Smith v. Donahoe
917 F. Supp. 2d 562
E.D. Va.2013Background
- Pro se Kenneth Smith, a USPS employee, alleged religious and genetic theory postings on a USPS bulletin board and administrative retaliation.
- Plaintiff claimed NIH and USDE supported anti-creationism bias in testing and public schooling, hindering his theory on DNA.
- USPS allegedly removed/allowed removal of his advertisement; administrative complaints followed in May 2012 with later hearings pending.
- Plaintiff filed suit July 2012 against USPS, NIH, and USDE in official capacities, asserting five counts (First Amendment retaliation, viewpoint discrimination, equal protection, Title VII discrimination, and GINA-based claim).
- Defendants moved to dismiss and for summary judgment; Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition and a separate settlement motion; court granted strike of late opposition and granted summary judgment/dismissals on multiple counts.
- Court ultimately dismissed Counts I–III and V against all Defendants, granted summary judgment on Count IV in favor of Defendants, and denied Plaintiff’s settlement motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction over NIH/USDE claims | Smith argues NIH/USDE claims are actionable | NIH/USDE have sovereign immunity, lacking waiver | Counts I–III dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction against NIH/USDE |
| Freedom of speech claims against USPS for monetary relief | Counts I–III constitutional claims against USPS permit monetary relief | Section 1983/Bivens cannot be used against federal agencies or officials in official capacity | Monetary relief claims against USPS under Counts I–III dismissed |
| Injunctive relief against USPS | Requests for injunctive relief should proceed | CSRA precludes injunctive relief for federal employees/agency personnel decisions | Injunctive relief claims against USPS in Counts I–III dismissed (CSRA preclusion) |
| Title VII exhaustion timeliness | Exhaustion not properly addressed in complaint | Premature filing; administrative remedies not timely exhausted | Count IV (Title VII) dismissed on exhaustion grounds (summary judgment) |
| GINA claim viability | Count V alleged genetic information discrimination | No factual basis for genetic information discrimination under GINA | Count V dismissed for failure to plead genetic-information discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213 (4th Cir.1982) (burden on plaintiff to show jurisdiction; presumption true pleadings)
- Virginia v. United States, 926 F.Supp. 537 (E.D.Va.1995) (jurisdictional review standards for subject matter jurisdiction)
- Cap Leasing Co. v. FDIC, 999 F.2d 188 (7th Cir.1993) (ability to view outside pleadings to determine jurisdiction)
- Yokom v. U.S. Postal Service, 877 F.2d 276 (4th Cir.1989) (CSRA precludes review of merits of administrative personnel decisions)
- Doe v. Chao, 306 F.3d 170 (4th Cir.2002) (Bivens not applicable to federal agencies in official capacities)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (intiating plausibility standard for pleading)