Weinraub v. United States
927 F. Supp. 2d 258
E.D.N.C.2012Background
- Charles J. Weinraub filed FTCA claims against the United States for assault and battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, and negligence.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) alleging sovereign immunity and failure to state a claim.
- Court stayed discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.
- Allegations stem from an October 11, 2010 incident at Raleigh-Durham International Airport involving TSA screeners and airport police.
- Plaintiff was detained, arrested, and later released after surveillance video review; he suffered physical, economic, and emotional harms; he had submitted an administrative claim to TSA.
- Court concluded, on motion to dismiss, that claims are barred or fail to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FTCA § 2680(h) bars the claims as to TSA screeners | Weinraub argues TSA screeners are within the law enforcement proviso. | United States contends screeners are not investigative or law enforcement officers under § 2680(h). | TSA screeners are not within § 2680(h); sovereign immunity bars the claims. |
| Whether the intentional torts exception applies to the assault/false arrest/false imprisonment claims | Weinraub maintains an FTCA waiver covers these torts. | United States asserts the intentional torts exception applies to these claims. | Intentional torts exception applies; claims barred. |
| Whether plaintiff’s negligence claim survives the § 2680(h) bar | Weinraub argues negligence is independent of intentional acts. | United States contends the negligence claim arises from intentional torts and is barred. | Negligence claim fails; barred as arising from intentional torts. |
| Whether the complaint states a plausible negligence claim under Iqbal/Twombly | Weinraub asserts adequate factual matter. | United States argues no distinct factual basis separate from the intentional torts. | Plaintiff fails to state a plausible negligence claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1979) (FTCA sovereign immunity and waiver scope)
- United States v. Shearer, 473 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) ( Section 2680(h) bars claims arising from intentional torts)
- Ignacio v. United States, 674 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2012) (statutory interpretation of § 2680(h) and officer scope)
- Matsko v. United States, 372 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. 2004) (administrative employees generally outside § 2680(h))
- Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710 (N.C. 1985) (intentional torts preclude negligence under North Carolina law)
- Lynn v. Burnette, 138 N.C.App. 435 (N.C. App. 2000) (mutually exclusive theories: intentional torts vs. negligence)
- Harms v. United States, 972 F.2d 339 (4th Cir. 1992) (illustrates scope of law enforcement proviso)