Angela TOOKES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 07-2049 (RBW).
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Sept. 19, 2011.
811 F. Supp. 2d 322
REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge.
construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); see also Lasko v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 684 F.Supp.2d 120, 127 (D.D.C. 2010). However, speculative and conclusory assertions do not amount to “contradictory evidence in the record ... of agency bad faith.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 773 F.Supp.2d 57, 60 (D.D.C.2011); see also SafeCard Serv., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1201 (D.C.Cir.1991) (noting that “[m]ere speculation that as yet uncovered documents may exist does not undermine the finding that the agency conducted a reasonable search“). The Court concludes that the methods by which defendant has searched for responsive records were reasonable, appropriate, and fully in compliance with its obligations under FOIA, and that plaintiff has offered nothing more than mere speculation that additional records should have been uncovered. See, e.g., Pl.‘s Reply at 1 (“[T]here might have been notations on what was received.“).
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendant‘s motion for summary judgment. A separate order will issue.
Christopher Aldo Porco, Law Offices of Christopher Aldo Porco, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Harry B. Roback, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge.
Angela Tookes, the plaintiff in this civil case, seeks damages for assault and battery, false imprisonment, and negligent-training-and-supervision under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA“), resulting from an incident involving members of the United States Marshals Services (“Marshals Services“) on January 21, 2003. Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.“) ¶¶ 9, 18-22, 23, 25, 26, 29. Currently before the Court is the Defendant‘s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the plaintiff‘s claims of (1) false imprisonment, and (2) negligent training and supervision. After carefully considering the plaintiff‘s complaint, the defendant‘s motion for partial summary judgment, and all memoranda of law relating to that motion,1 the Court concludes for the following reasons that the motion is granted as to the negligent-training-and-supervision claim, and denied as to the false imprisonment claim.
I. Background
On an unknown date but relatively near in time to January 21, 2003, a Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia issued a bench warrant for the plaintiff‘s arrest after she failed to comply with a subpoena. Am. Compl. ¶ 9. Three United States Deputy Marshals then executed the bench warrant on January 21, 2003, and arrested the plaintiff at her home. Id. After taking the plaintiff into custody, the deputy marshals transported her to the Superior Court, where she was fingerprinted and placed in a holding cell while awaiting her initial appearance before the court. Pl.‘s Opp‘n, Ex. 2 (Dec. 3, 2009 Deposition of Angela Tookes (“Tookes De-position“))
After the hearing, the plaintiff was returned to the “basement” area near the holding cell, where she asked a deputy marshal whether she could retrieve her personal items from the holding cell. Pl.‘s Opp‘n, Ex. 2 (Tookes Deposition) at 108:23-24. The deputy marshal eventually retrieved her items from the cell for her, but after questioning the legality of her having two passports, the deputy marshal told the plaintiff that he was going to keep her Nigerian passport because it was “unlawful to have two passports.” Id. at 113:6-10. He then instructed her to leave the basement area. Id. at 114:11-12. The plaintiff initially refused to leave the basement area and instead asked the deputy marshal for his name, to which he responded by summoning other deputy marshals and instructing them to “get her out of here.” Id. at 114:12-16. The plaintiff al-2 leges that the deputy marshals then “forcefully tossed [her] out of a side door of the courthouse,” Am. Compl. ¶ 13, and when she realized that she still did not have her keys, “the plaintiff knocked on the door and asked for her keys.” Id. ¶ 14. At this point, the plaintiff asserts that “[s]everal [deputy marshals] went outside and began to physically attack [her].” Id. ¶ 15. The plaintiff further asserts that, after the attack, the deputy marshals handcuffed her, “dragged” her back into the courthouse, and left her sitting on a chair. Pl.‘s Opp‘n, Ex. 2 (Tookes Deposition) at 138:7-9, 12. After some period of time, a District of Columbia police officer approached her because he had heard someone “crying [for] a long time.” Id. at 141:4. The officer then called an ambulance. Am. Compl. ¶ 15. While waiting for the ambulance to arrive, the courthouse medical clinic evaluated the plaintiff. Id. ¶ 17.
On July 3, 2003, the plaintiff submitted a Standard Form 95 (“SF-95“) to the Marshals Service, Def.‘s Mem. at 3, which is a form used by a party seeking redress for tort claims against the United States, GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 904 n. 16 (D.C.Cir.1987). The Marshals Service did not respond to the plaintiff‘s claim. Am. Compl. ¶ 4. As a result of the Marshals Service‘s non-response, the plaintiff filed her Complaint in this Court on November 13, 2007, which she later amended on January 8, 2009. See
The defendant has now moved for partial summary judgment on the plaintiff‘s negligent-training-and-supervision claim, as well as her claim for false imprisonment. As to the plaintiff‘s negligent-training-and-supervision claim, the defendant provides four arguments in support of its assertion that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this claim. Def.‘s Mem. at 8. First, the defendant asserts that “claims involving the training or supervision of government personnel are excluded from the FTCA‘s waiver of sovereign immunity” pursuant to the discretionary function exception, id. at 8, and “[t]hus, [the] plaintiff cannot bring a claim of negligent training and supervision [against the Marshals Service] under the FTCA,” id. at 9. Second, the defendant argues that the “[p]laintiff failed to exhaust [all] administrative remedies for her negligent[ ]train-ing[-]and[-]supervision claim,” id. at 10, because she “did not provide the [Marshals Service] with any notice in her administrative claim that would have led to an investigation into the training or supervising of [deputy] marshals with no alleged prior or subsequent misbehavior,” id. at 11. Third, the defendant argues that the negligent-training-and-supervision claim is without merit “because [the plaintiff] has not even alleged any facts, much less produced evidence, that support such a claim” and instead relies on “vague and conclusory assertions that the [Marshals Service] should [have] done more to train its deputies.” Id. at 12. Fourth, the defendant states that the “negligent[-]training[-]and[-]supervision claim fails because [the plaintiff] has not identified an expert to establish the standard of care applicable to the training and supervision of Deputy U.S. Marshals,” id. at 13, which “generally is necessary [to bring] claims of negligent[-]training[-]and[-]supervision of police officers,” id. (quoting Cotton v. Dist. of Columbia, 541 F.Supp.2d 195, 207 (D.D.C.2008)).
With regard to the plaintiff‘s false imprisonment claim, the defendant argues that summary judgment is appropriate because “[i]n her SF[-]95, [the plaintiff] provided no notice to the [Marshals Service]
The plaintiff opposes the defendant‘s motion for partial summary judgment, but she only responds to the defendant‘s arguments regarding the false imprisonment claim. The plaintiff argues that she exhausted all of the administrative remedies available to her for the false imprisonment claim because her SF-95 states that “[she] was assaulted and falsely arrested.” Pl.‘s Opp‘n at 4. Although the plaintiff acknowledges that she used the words “falsely arrested” rather than “falsely imprisoned,” she argues that “there is no real difference as a practical matter between false arrest and false imprisonment.” Id. at 4 n. 1 (citing Shaw v. May Dep‘t Stores Co., 268 A.2d 607, 609 n. 2 (D.C.1970)). Concerning the defendant‘s challenge to the merits of her false imprisonment claim, the plaintiff characterizes that argument as erroneously “rest[ing] ... on the notion that [she] was not incarcerated in the cellblock twice,” id. at 5, when in fact “[w]hether [she] was falsely imprisoned inside a cellblock or another location (i.e. the Marshals’ office) is irrelevant” because “[a]n unlawful imprisonment claim simply requires [a]n unlawful deprivation of freedom of locomotion for any amount of time, by actual force or a threat of force,” id. (quoting Marshall v. District of Columbia, 391 A.2d 1374, 1380 (D.C.1978)). Indeed, the plaintiff, in proffering evidence in support of her false imprisonment claim, relies on her deposition in which she “describ[ed] in detail” when she “was handcuffed by the [deputy] marshals and dragged to their office.” Id. As to the defendant‘s efforts to limit her damages, the plaintiff argues that her total damages are not limited to the amount claimed in the administrative claim because the existence of “newly discovered evidence and/or intervening facts” justifies damages in excess of what she sought during the administrative process. Id. at 2.
In response to the plaintiff‘s opposition memorandum, the defendant argues that the “[p]laintiff ... has abandoned her negligent[-]training[-]and[-]supervision claim” because she failed to address any of the arguments the defendant made regarding that claim, and “[t]he Court should, accordingly, treat the arguments as conceded.” Def.‘s Reply at 1. As for the false imprisonment claim, the defendant further argues that the plaintiff‘s SF-95 “does not present a false imprisonment or arrest claim,” id. at 8, because the “administrative complaint ... makes no reference to [the plaintiff] being re-incarcerated in a cellblock,” and because the administrative complaint “also fails to allege any injury caused by a false arrest or imprisonment apart from the physical injuries she alleges were caused by the alleged assault and battery,” id.
II. Standard of Review
The Court initially notes that, in its motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to
When a party moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), “the plaintiff[] bear[s] the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.” Biton v. Palestinian Interim Self-Gov‘t Auth., 310 F.Supp.2d 172, 176 (D.D.C.2004). A court considering a Rule 12(b)(1) motion must accept ““all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true.“” Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249, 1250 (D.C.Cir. 2005) (quoting Sloan v. U.S. Dep‘t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 236 F.3d 756, 759 (D.C.Cir. 2001)) (alteration omitted). In addition to considering the undisputed facts in the record in resolving a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, Herbert v. Nat‘l Acad. of Sciences, 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C.Cir.1992), the Court may also consider “materials outside the pleadings,” Jerome Stevens, 402 F.3d at 1253.
B. Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment
To grant a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Rule 56, a court must find that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
In responding to a summary judgment motion, the plaintiff “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Accordingly, the plaintiff must not rely on “mere allegations or denials ... but ... must set forth specific facts showing that there [are] genuine issue[s] for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (second omission in original). Thus, “[i]f the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citations omitted).
III. Legal Analysis
The issues before the Court are several. First, the Court must decide if the plaintiff‘s negligent-training-and-supervision claim is barred by the FTCA‘s discretionary function exception. Second, the Court must determine if the plaintiff‘s description of her false imprisonment claim in her SF-95 constitutes sufficient notice to the Marshals Service under the FTCA. Third, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff is re-characterizing the basis for her false imprisonment claim in a manner that constitutes an impermissible amendment of her Amended Complaint. Fourth, the Court must assess whether there is a disputed genuine issue of material fact with regard to the plaintiff‘s false imprisonment claim, or whether the plaintiff has simply manufactured contradictory testimony in an attempt to create an issue of material fact. Finally, the Court must rule on whether the plaintiff is permitted to seek damages exceeding $250,000 as a
A. Negligent-Training-and-Supervision Claim
The defendant raises several arguments in seeking summary judgment on the plaintiff‘s negligent-training-and-supervision claim. The Court need not address them all, however, because the defendant has sufficiently demonstrated that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
“The FTCA grants federal district courts jurisdiction over claims arising from certain torts committed by federal employees in the scope of their employment, and waives the government‘s sovereign immunity from such claims.” Sloan v. U.S. Dep‘t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 236 F.3d 756, 759 (D.C.Cir.2001) (citing
The Supreme Court in United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991), formulated a two-step analysis for determining whether a challenged governmental action is protected as a discretionary function. First, the act must “involve an element of judgment or choice,” and not one where a “federal statute, regulation[,] or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow.” Id. at 327, 111 S.Ct. 1267. Second, the judgment exercised in carrying out the governmental action must be “of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield,” id. at 322-23, 111 S.Ct. 1267, i.e., a decision “grounded in social, economic[,] and political policy,” id. at 323, 111 S.Ct. 1267.
Both parts of the Gaubert test are satisfied here. As to the first prong, the defendant correctly notes that the plaintiff fails to cite any “statute, regulation, or policy that specifically prescribes how [the Marshals Service] should train or oversee deputy marshals.” Def.‘s Mem. at 8. And, in light of the plaintiff‘s failure to rebut this argument in her opposition memorandum, she has conceded that there is no statute, regulation, or policy that governs the supervision and training of the deputy marshals involved in this case.
With regard to the second Gaubert prong, the governing case law in this Circuit firmly supports a finding that the supervision and training of deputy marshals are discretionary governmental functions grounded in social, economic, and political policy. In Burkhart v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 112 F.3d 1207, 1217 (D.C.Cir.1997), for example, the Circuit held that the hiring, training, and supervision of personnel working for the Washington, D.C. regional public transportation agency (WMATA) fell within the discretionary function exception. Specifically, the Circuit concluded that
[t]he hiring decisions of a public entity require consideration of numerous factors, including budgetary constraints, public perception, economic conditions,
individual backgrounds, office diversity, experience[,] and employer intuition .... Similarly, supervision decisions involve a complex balancing of budgetary considerations, employee privacy rights, and the need to ensure public safety. The extent of training with which to provide employees requires consideration of fiscal constraints, public safety, the complexity of the task involved, the degree of harm a wayward employee might cause, and the extent to which employees have deviated from accepted norms in the past. Such decisions are surely among those involving the exercise of political, social, or economic judgment.
Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). Although the Circuit‘s discussion above was directed to WMATA personnel, its analysis is equally applicable, if not more so, to the United States Marshals Service, given its responsibility to provide security at the District of Columbia Superior Court complex. See Bostic v. U.S. Capitol Police, 644 F.Supp.2d 106, 110 (D.D.C.2009) (Sullivan, J.) (“The [Capitol Police‘s] training and supervision of employees is exactly the kind of discretionary function that is not subject to judicial second-guessing.“) (citing Daisley v. Riggs Bank, N.A., 372 F.Supp.2d 61, 81-82 (D.D.C.2005)); see also Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 66-68 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (agreeing that “[d]ecisions regarding how much training should be given to guards and embassy employees, and the amount of security-related guidance that should be provided necessarily entail[ed] balancing competing demands for funds and resources” and were therefore barred under the second step of the discretionary function test (first alteration in original)). Because the plaintiff‘s negligent-training-and-supervision claim challenges governmental conduct falling within the FTCA‘s discretionary function exception, the Court must dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
B. False Imprisonment Claim
i. Sufficiency of the Plaintiff‘s Administrative Complaint
Turning to the plaintiff‘s false imprisonment claim, the Court must initially consider the defendant‘s argument that the plaintiff failed to properly present her claim to the Marshals Service before filing this action. The FTCA directs that, prior to bringing suit, “the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate [f]ederal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail.”
The standard for sufficient notice under the FTCA is minimal. Id. at 920. Moreover, the FTCA only imposes on claimants the burden of providing notice, not the burden of substantiating claims. See id. at 921-22 (reversing dismissal by district court because it imposed on claimants the burden of demonstrating the merits of their claims at the agency level as a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing suit). The claimant need not even provide explicit notice to the government of all theories
Applying these principles to the present case, the Court concludes that the plaintiff provided the defendant with sufficient notice as required by the FTCA. As noted, the plaintiff‘s administrative claim form, the SF-95, states that she “was assaulted and falsely arrested by U.S. Marshal[ ]s.” Def.‘s Mem., Ex. 1 (July 3, 2003 SF-95) at 3. While there is no indication that the Marshals Service conducted an investigation into the assault and false arrest claims after receiving the plaintiff‘s SF-95, the Court finds that a reasonably prudent investigation would have revealed the plaintiff‘s false imprisonment claim as another likely theory of liability, as both the false arrest and false imprisonment allegedly occurred while the plaintiff was at the Courthouse, and the same facts serve as the basis for both claims. See Def.‘s Mem., Ex. 1 (July 3, 2003 SF-95) at 3 (“The Marshalls then got out their handcuffs and put them on Ms. Tookes. They dragged her to their office and said, ‘you sit down here.‘“). And although the plaintiff‘s SF-95 does not use the term “false imprisonment,” it does states that the plaintiff was “falsely arrested,” id. (emphasis added), which the Court finds to provide sufficient notice of the false imprisonment claim because “there is ‘no real difference as a practical matter between false arrest and false imprisonment,‘” Creecy v. District of Columbia, No. 10-cv-841, 2011 WL 1195780, at *5 n. 3 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2011) (quoting Shaw v. May Dep‘t Stores Co., 268 A.2d 607, 609 (D.C.1970)). The Court, therefore, concludes that the false imprisonment claim was encompassed in the plaintiff‘s administrative claim and that the defendant‘s attack on the adequacy of notice provided by the plaintiff must be rejected.5
ii. Alleged Re-characterization of the False Imprisonment Claim
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff‘s description of the events in her opposition memorandum is nothing more than an “ef- fort
Unlike the defendant, however, the Court does not find the plaintiff‘s assertions regarding her purported re-incarceration to be untethered from what she alleges in her pleadings. In her Amended Complaint, the plaintiff states that “[w]hile being escorted out of the court by the U.S. Marshals, one Marshal alleged that Ms. Tookes had two passports. This incited a Marshal to incarcerate Ms. Tookes again.” Am. Compl. ¶ 12 (emphasis added). While it is not clear if the incarceration referenced by the plaintiff in her Amended Complaint occurred while she was inside or outside of the Courthouse, it is clear that the plaintiff is alleging an additional detention “while being escorted out of the court.” Id. Furthermore, the plaintiff‘s description in her opposition directly quotes her SF-95 form, which the Marshals Service received prior to the initiation of this lawsuit. Simply put, the plaintiff‘s contention that the deputy marshals falsely imprisoned her after removing her from the Superior Court is a reiteration, rather than a re-characterization, of the allegations in the plaintiff‘s SF-95 and Amended Complaint, and as such, provides no basis for summary judgment being granted to the defendant.
iii. Existence of a Genuine Issue of Fact as to False Imprisonment Claim
The defendant next argues that while the record reflects contradictory testimony by the plaintiff regarding her false imprisonment claim, these inconsistencies do not create a genuine factual dispute sufficient to preclude summary judgment because the “plaintiff cannot create a genuine issue of material fact by contradicting her own testimony.” Def.‘s Reply at 10 (citing Pyramid Sec., Ltd. v. IB Resolution, Inc., 924 F.2d 1114, 1123 (D.C.Cir.1991)). The defendant concedes, however, that “if the Court permits [the plaintiff] to base her false imprisonment claim on her allegedly being brought back inside the Superior Court[ ], then ... there would be a disputed issue of material fact on that portion of the claim.” Def.‘s Reply at 11 n. 2. It appears that District of Columbia law does indeed provide a basis for the plaintiff to pursue a false imprisonment claim resulting from her allegation that the deputy marshals “dragged” her back into the Superior Court without legal justification. Pl.‘s Opp‘n, Ex. 2 (Tookes Deposition) at 138:7-9, 12; see Marshall v. Dist. of Columbia, 391 A.2d 1374, 1380 (D.C.1978) (“In the District of Columbia, the gist of any complaint for ... false imprisonment is an unlawful detention .... An unlawful deprivation of freedom of locomotion for any amount of time, by actual force or a threat of force, is sufficient” (citation omitted)). The Court therefore finds that the existence of a genuine issue of material fact precludes the Court from awarding the defendant summary judgment on the plaintiff‘s false imprisonment claim.
C. Amount of the Plaintiff‘s Potential Recovery
The defendant argues that because the plaintiff only sought $250,000 in damages in her SF-95, her recovery at trial must be limited to that amount, rather than the $3,000,000 ($1,000,000 per count) she seeks to recover in her Amended Complaint. See Def.‘s Mem., Ex. 1 (SF-95) at 1; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22, 25, 29. As a general matter, the FTCA limits the
The plaintiff has the burden of proving that she is entitled to invoke the sum-certain exception. See Murphy v. United States, 833 F.Supp. 1199, 1203 (E.D.Va.1993). In attempting to meet that burden, the plaintiff presents three arguments for why she should be allowed to seek damages above the amount she sought in her SF-95. First, she argues that “she did not know, nor could she reasonably know, that her injuries would persist such that she would never return to work,” and that “she did not know the extent and cost of medical care that would be required due to her injuries.” Pl.‘s Opp‘n at 3. Second, the plaintiff argues that “she ... was not able to quantify the emotional damages she suffered” when she submitted her SF-95, and “in fact, [she was] subsequently diagnosed with [post-traumatic stress disorder].” Id. Third, the plaintiff asserts that her damages are not capped because of inflation. Id. (citing McMichael v. United States, 856 F.2d 1026, 1035-36 (8th Cir.1988)).
Based on the current record, the Court finds that the plaintiff knew, or should have known, that under a worst-case scenario, her injuries could persist to the point that she would be unable to return to work. As the defendant correctly points out, in her SF-95 the plaintiff “expressly stated that her injuries were ‘permanent and serious[,]’ and that they would require her ‘to seek ongoing medical treatment.‘” Def.‘s Reply at 4 (quoting Def.‘s Mem., Ex. 1 (SF-95) at 3). Furthermore, the plaintiff‘s own physician noted that she was unable to work in 2003 “[b]ecause of the various physical findings and test results that were” conducted to determine the extent of the plaintiff‘s injuries. Def.‘s Mem., Ex. 2 (April 20, 2010 Deposition of Richard S. Meyer, M.D.) at 37:18-21. Having allegedly suffered injuries that prevented her from working and that continued to persist months after the incident, the plaintiff should have known when she filed her SF-95 with the Marshals Service that permanent disabilities were a possibility as a worst-case scenario, that she would need extensive and ongoing medical care, and that she would be unable to reenter the work force. Thus, the Court concludes, based on the record before it, that the plaintiff‘s recovery for her physical damages must be limited to $250,000.
Similarly, the Court is not persuaded that over the course of this litigation, the rate of inflation has increased to such a degree that would warrant the Court al- lowing
The plaintiff‘s emotional injuries, however, do justify invocation of the sum-certain exception. In Zurba v. United States, 318 F.3d 736, 741-42 (7th Cir.2003), the Seventh Circuit held that an aggrieved party‘s emotional injuries constituted “newly discovered evidence” because the plaintiff there did not know she suffered from a specific condition until five years after the administrative claim was submitted, even though she had been aware that she suffered some form of emotional distress prior to filing her administrative claim. Similarly, the plaintiff in this case was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after filing her SF-95. See Pl.‘s Opp‘n, Ex. 2 (Dec. 3, 2009 Deposition of Angela Tookes) at 78:21-79:14. And there is nothing in the record showing that the plaintiff should have known that she could eventually be diagnosed as suffering from the specific psychological disorder of post-traumatic stress disorder. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the plaintiff may seek to acquire damages in excess of the damages requested in her SF-95, but only to the extent that she seeks greater recovery for damages related to her purported post-traumatic stress disorder.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it must dismiss the plaintiff‘s negligent-training-and-supervision claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and that the defendant‘s motion for partial summary judgment must be denied as to the plaintiff‘s false imprisonment claim. In addition, the Court concludes that the plaintiff may seek damages in excess of $250,000, but only insofar as the additional damages are based on her alleged post-traumatic stress disorder.
SO ORDERED this 19th day of September, 2011.6
REGGIE B. WALTON
United States District Judge