Barnes v. Kline et al, No. 1:2017cv02577 - Document 9 (N.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 4/13/18. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, grants defendants' motion and dismisses this action. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. (Related Docs. 1 and 6 ) (D,MA)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: ROBERT E. BARNES, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : : FLOYD KLINE, et al., : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------- CASE NO. 1:17-CV-02577 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. No. 1] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Pro se Plaintiff Robert E. Barnes filed this action in the Lyndhurst Municipal Court against Floyd Kline, the Postmaster at the Lyndhurst branch of the post office, and the United States Postal Service (“USPS”). The Complaint in its entirety states: “On Feb 19, 2015, I received injuries at work. The USPS has refused to pay the total amount due, and I am in collections.” (Doc. No. 1-1 at 4). He seeks $ 1,000.00 damages. Defendants removed this case to federal court and filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They assert that Plaintiff’s only remedy for torts pertaining to work related injuries arises from the Federal Employees Compensation Act (“FECA”), and once the Secretary of the Department of Labor determines FECA applies, the Plaintiff is barred from filing a tort claim pertaining to the same injury. Plaintiff filed a federal worker’s compensation claim arising from the injuries he sustained on February 19, 2015 and that claim was accepted by the Department of Labor. Defendants contend this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this case. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is granted and this action is dismissed. FECA’s exclusive-remedy provision precludes Plaintiff’s suit. FECA is the federal government’s workers’ compensation plan.11 Like many such statutes, FECA balances the interests of the parties, giving federal employees compensation for work-related injuries without having to prove fault in exchange for giving up their right to sue their government employer for torts related to that injury.12 Here, although the Plaintiff’s allegation is vague, he indicates he is seeking damages against the United States for a workplace injury and is dissatisfied with the amount the government agreed to pay. His sole remedy for relief is through FECA and the administrative procedures outlined in the statute. Those awards are not subject to judicial review. 13 Accordingly, the United States is immune from any further liability for this injury and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider this case. IV. Conclusion Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion (Doc No. 6) is granted and this action is dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 13, 2018 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c) reads: The liability of the United States or an instrumentality thereof under this subchapter or any extension thereof with respect to the injury or death of an employee is exclusive and instead of all other liability of the United States or the instrumentality to the employee ... because of the injury or death ... under a Federal tort liability statute. See Wright v. United States, 717 F.2d 254, 256 (6th Cir. 1983). 12 McCall v. United States, 901 F.2d 548, 550 (6th Cir. 1990) (citing Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 460 U.S. 190, 194 (1983)). 13 See 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b); Wright, 717 F.2d at 257. 14 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides: An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in good faith. 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.