Smith v. the U.S. Equal Employment Oppportunity Commission, Civil Action No. 2016-1392

Background

Pro se plaintiff Janel N. Smith sued the EEOC and the MSPB in the D.C. Superior Court, asserting tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for alleged mishandling of discrimination and whistleblower matters and seeking various emotional and reputational damages.
Complaint accused Defendants of creating barriers to justice through collusion, lack of transparency, intimidation, biased complaint handling, and protecting budgetary interests; it alleged no concrete facts tied to Smith’s own injury in the filings before removal.
Defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; Smith submitted additional exhibits (emails and an MSPB pleading) in opposition but still provided limited specific facts.
The court treated Smith’s pro se filings liberally but applied the rules governing jurisdictional and Rule 12(b)(6) challenges, allowing consideration of materials outside the pleadings for jurisdictional issues.
The court found two independent defects dispositive: (1) sovereign-immunity barriers under the FTCA because federal agencies (EEOC and MSPB) are not proper FTCA defendants and the alleged conduct involves quasi-adjudicative duties that private persons do not owe; and (2) the complaint lacked specific facts establishing duty, breach, or causation necessary to state a negligence claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FTCA waives sovereign immunity for suits against EEOC/MSPB actions in processing claims	Smith contends EEOC/MSPB mishandled enforcement/processing and are liable under FTCA	Defendants argue FTCA only permits suit against the United States (not agencies) and processing/enforcement are quasi‑adjudicative duties not owed by private persons	Dismissed: FTCA does not permit suing agencies; alleged duties are those private persons would not have, so sovereign immunity bars jurisdiction
Whether local law would impose liability on a private person for the alleged conduct (FTCA requirement)	Smith points to alleged evidence destruction, obstruction, and biased processing, invoking local statutes	Defendants say private parties have no duty to process hearings or enforce federal discrimination/whistleblower laws; hence local law would not impose such liability	Dismissed: FTCA § 1346(b) not satisfied because private-person analog does not exist for agency adjudicative duties
Whether the complaint states a plausible negligence claim (Rule 12(b)(6))	Smith alleges negligence, mismanagement, reprisal, emotional harm, but with few specifics tying conduct to injury	Defendants argue allegations are conclusory and fail to plead duty, breach, causation, or specific facts	Dismissed: Complaint fails to plead sufficient factual content to state a plausible claim
Whether pro se status alters pleading requirements sufficiently to save the case	Smith relies on lenient standards for pro se pleadings and submits exhibits	Defendants acknowledge pro se leniency but contend deficiencies remain	Denied relief: Pro se liberal construction insufficient to overcome jurisdictional bar and factual deficiencies

Key Cases Cited

FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature)
United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43 (FTCA waiver limited to circumstances where private person would be liable under local law)
Jayvee Brand, Inc. v. United States, 721 F.2d 385 (quasi‑adjudicative federal action is not the type of conduct for which private persons are liable)
Hornbeck Offshore Transp., LLC v. United States, 569 F.3d 506 (FTCA claim barred where duty arises from federal statute and private analog absent)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must plead facts plausibly showing entitlement to relief)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleading applies; conclusory allegations insufficient)