Errivares v. Transportation Security Administration, No. 8:2009cv01138 - Document 19 (D. Md. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 2/17/10 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 2/17/10. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : JAIME ERRIVARES : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 09-1138 : TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending and ready for resolution conversion case is Defendant s motion to dismiss. in this (Paper 17). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, was notified by the clerk of the pendency of the motion and the necessity for filing a response. 1975). See Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th No response was filed. Cir. The court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons will that follow, Defendant s motion to dismiss be granted. I. Background This case computer. through arises from a dispute over a lost laptop According to the complaint, while he was passing a security checkpoint at an unspecified airport, Plaintiff s hand bag was taken by a United States Transportation Security Administration ( TSA ) officer from one side of the checkpoint to the other. (Paper 2). Plaintiff saw the officer close the hand bag before everything [was] OK. the (Id.). officer told Plaintiff that When Plaintiff arrived at his destination, Miami, Florida, he discovered that his computer was not in the hand bag. events occurred on (Id.). July Defendant states that the alleged 14, 2008 Airport in Arlington, Virginia. at Ronald Reagan National (Paper 17, Attach. 1, at 3). Plaintiff s administrative claim was dismissed by the TSA on October 13, 2008. (Paper 2, Attach. 3). Plaintiff filed a claim for return of the laptop or $1043.02 in the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County on January 15, 2009. 2). (Paper The case was removed to federal court on May 4, 2009. (Paper 1). II. Motion to Dismiss A. Standard of Review The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of the plaintiff s complaint. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th 1999). Cir. Except in certain specified cases, a plaintiff s complaint need only satisfy the simplified pleading standard of Rule 8(a), Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002), which requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing Fed.R.Civ.P. that 8(a)(2). the pleader is Nevertheless, 2 entitled Rule to relief. 8(a)(2) still requires a showing, rather entitlement to relief. 544, 555 n.3 (2007). than a blanket assertion, of Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. That showing must consist of more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action or naked assertion[s] Ashcroft v. Iqbal, devoid of further 129 S.Ct. 1937, factual 1949 enhancement. (2009)(internal citations omitted). In its determination, the court must consider all well-pled allegations in a complaint as true, Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994), and must construe all factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 783 (4th Cir. 1999)(citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993)). The court need not, however, accept unsupported legal allegations, Revene v. Charles County Comm rs, 882 F.2d 870, 873 (4th Cir. 1989), legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950, or conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events, United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir. 1979). See also Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192-93 (4th Cir. 2009). to [W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged, but it has not show[n] . . . that the 3 pleader is entitled to relief. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950 Thus, [d]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. Finally, while courts generally should hold pro se pleadings to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, they may nonetheless dismiss complaints that lack a cognizable legal theory or that fail to allege sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Turner v. Kight, 192 F.Supp.2d 391, 398 (D.Md. 2002), aff=d, 121 Fed.Appx. 9 (4th Cir. 2005)(unpublished). B. Analysis Defendant s motion U.S.C.A. ยง Defendant s where 1346(b)(1). statement the underlying Because that upon granted which events Plaintiff the alleged relief because A claim against the United States is governed by the place claim be granted. the a will fails of state dismiss Plaintiff law to to may occurred. does events not be 28 dispute occurred in Arlington, Virginia, the substantive law of Virginia applies. Plaintiff s complaint may be construed as intending either a negligence claim or a conversion claim under Virginia law. 4 1. Conversion In Virginia, a party is liable for conversion for the wrongful exercise or assumption of authority over another s goods, depriving the owner of their possession, or any act of dominion wrongfully exerted over property inconsistent with, the owner s rights. Va. 561, 582 (2001)(citations in denial of, or Simmons v. Miller, 261 omitted). Taking all of Plaintiff s statements as true, Plaintiff has not alleged that the TSA or computer. one of Plaintiff its has agents merely deprived alleged him that of he his laptop noticed the laptop was missing hours after a TSA officer handled his bag. This shows only that the officer could have acted wrongfully. The facts alleged do not demonstrate that the laptop s disappearance was more likely the result of wrongful action by the officer than either Plaintiff s own accidental misplacement or the wrongful action of another before or after the hand bag was taken through security. Thus, this is precisely situation warned against in Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950: the one may infer no more than the mere possibility of misconduct from the complaint, so the claim must be dismissed. 2. Negligence Plaintiff also fails to state a claim for negligence. For a negligence claim to succeed in Virginia, a plaintiff must show 5 the existence of a legal duty, a breach proximate causation resulting in damage. Ass'n v. King, 266 Va. 288, 293 (2003). fails to allege these elements. of that duty, and Atrium Unit Owners Plaintiff s complaint Even if the court infers that the TSA had a legal duty of care towards the contents of the hand bag and that the missing computer was in the hand bag when the TSA officer carried the bag through security, the complaint provides no information linking the computer s disappearance to the TSA officer: i.e. it may have been stolen or misplaced at any time between when Plaintiff left the security checkpoint and when he discovered it was missing in Miami. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Defendant s motion to dismiss will be granted. A separate Order will follow. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 6
]]>
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.
