Wilson v. Obama
770 F. Supp. 2d 188
D.D.C.2011Background
- Pro se plaintiff Donald E. Wilson filed a civil action in DC Small Claims alleging Barack Obama and Patrick Knepp violated national security and caused eviction.
- Defendant removed the case to this court and moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6).
- Plaintiff’s statements claim an August 15, 2009 interrogation by Obama and others regarding submarine duties led to eviction and hotel costs.
- Knepp has not appeared or been served; address given was 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., but court notes Knepp was not a federal employee at relevant times.
- Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to dismiss by the deadline set by the court.
- Court dismisses the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim, and grants the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FHA claim against defendants is cognizable | Wilson alleges eviction tied to national-security concerns and Federal actions. | FHA claim not properly brought against defendants; landlord not a party here. | No FHA claim against Obama or Knepp; eviction link not against defendants. |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars claims | Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from federal actor for actions affecting tenancy. | Sovereign immunity deprives monetary claims absent FTCA waiver. | Claims barred by sovereign immunity; FTCA waiver not satisfied and venue improper. |
| Whether FTCA applies to tort claims | Tort claims against federal employee arise from alleged national-security-interrogation. | FTCA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies and exclusions apply. | FTCA does not authorize these claims; exhaustion missing and contract-tort exclusion applies. |
| Whether venue is proper | Venue improper under FTCA; proper venue would be the plaintiff's residence or where act occurred. | ||
| Whether the complaint is insubstantial or fantastical | Plaintiff presents national-security-interrogation allegations. | Allegations are fantastical and implausible, lacking jurisdictional basis. | Complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and credibility of claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (claims must be facially plausible)
- Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (sua sponte dismissal authority for lack of relief)
- Roum v. Bush, 461 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D.D.C. 2006) (sovereign immunity and FTCA limitations)
- Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1974) (claims must have merit; not completely fanciful)
- Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- James v. Verizon Servs. Corp., 639 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2009) (venue and jurisdiction considerations in 12(b)(3) motions)
- Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (sovereign immunity framework for monetary claims)