McNealy v. Becnel et al, No. 2:2014cv02181 - Document 246 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 238 Motion for Clarification. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs federal and state law tort claims as to the Federal Defendant are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/1/2016. (cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McNealy v. Becnel et al Doc. 246 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A N EW TON MCN EALY, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 14 -2 18 1 D ARRYL J. BECN EL, ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ( 2 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is a Motion to Clarify filed by the Federal Defendant, The Equal Em ploym ent Opportunity Com m ission (“EEOC” or “Federal Defen dant”). 1 On October 17, 20 16, the Court issued its Order and Reasons 2 with respect to the Defendants’ eight dispositive m otions. 3 On October 18, 20 16, the Federal Defendant filed its Motion to Clarify. 4 The EEOC seeks confirm ation that the lone rem aining purported state law tort claim as to the Federal Defendant is also dism issed, for the sam e reasons articulated in Court’s Order and Reasons as to the Plaintiff’s Federal Tort Claim s Act claim s. As the Court stated in its October 17, 20 16 Order an d Reasons: The EEOC correctly points out that McNealy’s claim s against it are barred under the doctrine of sovereign im m unity. The basic rule of federal sovereign im m unity is that the United States cannot be sued without the consent of Congress. This im m unity from suit extends to the agencies and officers of the United States, such as the EEOC. Thus, suits against agencies of the United States are barred, unless there is a waiver of sovereign im m unity. 5 The Court specifically addressed Plaintiff’s Federal Tort Claim s Act claim s and stated: It is well-accepted the FTCA is the exclusive rem edy for tort suits against the United States, and the FTCA thus operates as a lim ited waiver of sovereign im m unity. The FTCA’s waiver of sovereign im m unity is, however, 1 R. Doc. 238 . R. Doc. 237. 3 R. Docs. 117, 119, 121, 138, 146, 210 , 215, 216. 4 R. Doc. 238 . 5 R. Doc. 237, at 30 -31 (internal quotations and citation s om itted). 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com subject to several exceptions. As a general rule, it is beyond dispute that the United States, and not the responsible agen cy or em ployee, is the proper party defendant in an FTCA suit. Thus, McNealy does not have a valid FTCA claim against the EEOC. 6 The Federal Defendant argues, “[T]o the extent a state law claim as to the Federal Defendant m ay have been alleged by Plaintiff, pursuant to La. Civ. Code art. 2315, such claim s should also be dism issed for the exact sam e reasons stated in the Court’s Order and Reasons.”7 Specifically, the Federal Defendant adds, “it is well settled that the FTCA is the exclusive rem edy for tort claim s against the United States (and its agencies).”8 The Court agrees with the Federal Defendant. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), no action in tort m ay be instituted against the United States “unless the claim ant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been denied by the agen cy in writing.”9 Only when the claim has been denied or six m onths have passed since the adm in istrative claim was filed m ay a plaintiff bring suit in federal district court on the claim . 10 Any failure to com ply with the FTCA’s adm inistrative exhaustion requirem ent is a jurisdictional defect. 11 The regulations at 28 C.F.R. Part 14 set forth the procedural requirem ents for subm itting an adm inistrative tort claim to an agency. Under 28 C.F.R. § 14.2, an individual m ay file an adm inistrative claim for dam ages against a federal agency by subm itting a Standard Form 95 or other written notice of the claim to the agency that 6 Id. at 33 (internal citations and quotations om itted). R. Doc. 238-1, at 2. 8 Id. (em phasis in original). 9 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). 10 See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 240 1(b). 11 See, e.g., McN eil v. United States, 50 8 U.S. 10 6, 112 (1993); Jerves v. United States, 996 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1992); Ply ly er v. United States, 90 0 F.2d 41, 42 (4th Cir. 1990 ); W illiam son v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 815 F.2d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 1987); Henderson v. United States (785 F.2d 121, 123 (4th Cir. 1986); Keene Corp v . United States, 70 0 F.2d 836, 8 40 -41) (2d Cir. 1983), cert den ied, 464 U.S. 864 (1983). 7 2 allegedly com m itted the tort. Plaintiff failed to subm it an adm inistrative tort claim to the relevant federal agency as required. Accordingly, IT IS ORD ERED that the Federal Defendant’s Motion for Clarification 12 is hereby GRAN TED . IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that Plaintiff’s federal and state law tort claim s as to the Federal Defendant are hereby D ISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 1s t d ay o f N o ve m be r, 2 0 16 . ________________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 12 R. Doc. 238 . 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
