Sharrer v. United States of America et al, No. 7:2018cv00356 - Document 67 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 5/20/2019. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U.S.DISK rn IRT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED MAt2 2 2812 IN T H E U N ITE D STATE S D ISTRICT CO U RT FOR TI-JE W ESTERN DISTM CT OF W RGIN IA RO AN O K E D IW SIO N JUL C.DUDLEX LERK BY: D M A RY LEE SH A RRE R, Plaintiffy Case N o.7:18-cv-356 V. UN ITE D STATE S O F AM ER ICA, By: M ichaelF.U rbansld D efendant. ChiefUnited StatesDisttictJudge M E M O R AN D U M O PIN IO N Thism attercom esbefore the coutton defendanttheU nited StatesofAm erica's rtunitedStates'')modontoclismiss,ECF No.60,plninéffM aryLeeShazrer'stffharrer''l Am ended Com plaint,ECF N o.53.Sharrerresponded to theU nited States'm otion on M ay 6,2019.ECF N o.65.TheUnited Statesreplied on M ay 13,2019.ECF N o.66.Forthe reasonsbelow,thecouttwillG RAN T theUnited States'm odon and D ISM ISS with prejudice allcountsbroughtagainsttheUnited States. AsthecouttexercisedsupplementaljutisdicéonovetShatret'sclnimsagainst defendantW alterSova(<fsova'')dependentonitsjlptisdiction.overtheclnimsagainstthe United States,thecourtwillalso D ISM ISS Sharrer'scbim sagainstSova.These clnim sm ust bebroughtin state court,should Coffey choose to do so. Sharrer v. United States of America et al Doc. 67 Dockets.Justia.com SharrerworksfotK G S,Inc.,aconttactm aildelivery servicethatdeliversforthe United StatesPostalSerdce('TUSPS'7).ECF No.53,at2-3.Shatrerpicksup mailatthe USPS m ain postofik ein Roanokeand deliversitto variouslocadonsin Virginia.Id.Sova, the only individualnam ed by the Am ended Com plaintasa defendant,isaU SPS em ployee who wozked attheRoanokeM ainBranch whereSharrerpicksup themail.J-l. L Sharrer allegesthatSovasexuallyharassed,assaulted,andbattered herdutingwork houts.J. i Sharret'scom plaintincludesanum berofspecificincidentsofphysicaland verbal harassm entand sexualassaultsand batteries.Id. Sharrerallegesthatsherepeatedly told Sova to stop and consistently reported llis behaviorto otherUSPS em ployees,stardng in Septem ber2016.ECF N o.53,at4.She clnim sU SPS refused to preventSova from interacéng with herand thatU SPS m anagerial em ployeeswere aware ofpriorcom plaintsofsexualharassm entagainstSova.zJtk Sovawas .. fm ally arrested afterSharrerinitiated state crim inalproceedings.Id. Sharrernow seeksto hold theU nited Statesand U SPS liable forthe assaultsand batteriescomrnitted bySovathrough theFederalTortClmimsAct,28U.S.C.jj2671-2680. (KTFTCA'')>onthebasisofrespondeatsu eriorliabilityandatheoryofnegligentretendon. ECF.No.53,at5-7.Sharzerflled heroriginalComplaintonluly23,2018.ECF No.1.After thecourtgranted theUnitedStates'fustmotion to disrniss,ECF N o.52,Sharrerfzed her Am ended Com plainton A pril8,2019,ECF N o.53.CountO ne allegesassaultand battery 1M factsare taken from Sharrez'sCom plaintand are prestlm ed to betrue.Re ublican Par ofN orth Carolinav.M artin, 980F.2dv.943,952(4thCir.1992). 2Sharrerallegesthatshewastold by theUSPS m anagerBob H arstellthatSovawasoriginally m oved to Roanokebecause he had sexuallyharassed otherwom en in Lynchburg.ECF N o.53,at5. notonly aginstSova,butagainsttheUnited Statesand USPS,through Sovaastheiragent andem ployee.J-I. L at5.Thisclaim isbroughtTfundertheFT'CA orunderthetheoryof res ondeatsu eriororotherwiseunderVirginialam ''Ldaat5-6.CountTwo alleges negligentretention againsttheUnitedStatesandUSPSpursuantto theFTCA.Ldaat6.In CountTwo,Sharrerclaim sthatthe United Statesand U SPS knew orshould have ktlown through theuseofotdinarycateofSova'sptopensidesand negligently placed him in a ' posiéon wheze he could have accessto potentialvictim s.Id. O n April24,theU nited Statesfied am otion to substim tetheUnited Statesasa defendantforUSPS.ECF N o.58.Tlzism odon wasgranted.ECF N o.64. II. A moéontoclisnnissunderFederalRuleofCivilProceduze12$)(1)challengesa colzrt'ssubjectmatterj'lriscliction.Absentsubjectmatterjtuisdicdon,acourtmustdismiss theacéon.Evansv.B.F.PerldnsCo.aDiv.o/StandexInt'lCo .,166F.3d 642,653(4th Cit 1999).W hethetaplaindffhasstandingto bring acauseofaction ffisgenerallyassociated wit. h CivilProceduteRule12q$(1)pertainingtosubjectmatterjutisdicdon.''CGM,LLC v. BellsouthTelecomms.,Inc.,664F.3d46,52(4thCit.2011).dvhatisbecauseWzdcleIII givesfedezalcouttsjurisdicdon onlyovercasesandcontzoversies,'and standingisfan integralcomponentofthecaseorconttoversyreqllirement.'''1d.(quodngMillerv.Brown, 462F.3d 312,316 (4th Cir.2006)).W hen adefendantraisessubstandvechallengesto a court'sjurisclicéonunderRule12q$(1),thecourtneednotacceptthecomplaint'sallegations astt'ueand m ay considetfactsoutsidethecom plzintto detet-m ineifitcan propetly exercise subjectmatterjtuisdicdon.Kernsv.United States,585F.3d 187,192 (4t. h Cit.2009).Atall times,ffgtqheplainéffhastheburdenofprovingthatsubjectmatterjurisdiction exists.''Evans,166 F.3d at647.. Meanwhile,Rule12q$(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedurepet-mitsapartyto m ove fordisrnissalofa com plaintforfailuze to state aclnim upon wllich reliefcan be granted.TosutviveamoéontodisnnissunderRule129$(6),theplaindffmustplead suffkientfactsffto raise arightto zeliefabove tlae speculaéve level''and ffstate aclnim to relieftha!isplausibleonitsface.''BellAtl.Co .v.Twombl,550 U.S.544,555,570 (2007). A plaintiffestabEshesdffacialplausibilitf'bypleadingfffacttzalcontentthatallowsthecourt to clraw thereasonableinference thatthe defendantisliable forthenaisconductalleged.'' Ashcroftv.I bal,556U.S.662,678(2009).Inrulingona12q$(6)motion,thecourtmust acceptallwell-pleaded allegationsin the com plaintastt'ue and draw allreasonable factazal inferencesin the lightm ostfavorable to theplainéff.lbarrav.Uaited States,120 F.3d 472, 474 (4th Cir.1997).Howevet,<'Flhreadbaterecitalsoftheelementsofacauseofacdon, sùpported by m ere conclusory statem ents,do notsuffice.''Lq-ab 1,556U .S.at678;seeW -qg MozeDogs,LLCv.Cozart,680F.3d359,365(4thCir.2012)(holdingthecourtffneednot acceptlegalconclusionscouched asfactsorunwarranted inferences,unteasonable conclusions,orarguments7) (inteznalquotation matksomitted). 111. ThechangesShatrerhasm ade to hercom plaintdo notalterthe court'ypdormlling. The only m eaningfulchangesSharrerhasm adearelisted below : (1) On page5oftheAmended Complaint,SharreraddsthatafacttzalZlegadon that ffthe United Statesand theUnited StatesPostalSerdce had a zero tolerance policy which pzohibited Sova and otherfederalem ployeesfrom sexualiy harassing and...assaulting and battering fem aleem ployeesofthe federalgovernm ent....as w ellasotherwom en with whom federalem ployeesm ay com einto contactdllting the colzrseoftheirem ploym ent.''ECF N o.53,at5. () 2 Onpage5oftheAmendedComplaint,SharrerhasalteredCountOnesothatitis ' broughtptzrsuantto the IRTCA,ratherthan plzrsuantto the law sofVirginia.ECF N o.53,at5. (3)Onpage6oftheAmendedComplaint,Sharrerhasaddedtwoallegaéonsto CountTwo: ThatTftllegovernm entaldefendantshad a dutyto use reasonablecareto itw estigate the com plzntsand takeadequate rem edialm easuresto prevent and stop theharassm entand assaultsand batteriesy';ECF N o.53,at69and b. Thatdçthegovetnmentalgdefendants)breached theitdutyand failed touse reasonablecare to investigate the com plaintsand takeadequaterem edial m easuresto preventand stop theharassm entand assaultsand batteries,'' ECF N o.6. N oneofthese alterationshasany im pacton the court'spreviousrtzling.In herinidal Com plaint,SharrerbroughtCountO nepursuantto the law softhe Com m onwealth of . Virginia,ratherthan theF-TCA .ECF N o.1,at5.W hetherthe clnim ispled pursuantto the lawsofVirginiaortheFTCA,j2680$)oftheFTCA batsCountOne.Section2680q$,or the f'intenéonaltortsexceptiony''unam biguously exem ptscertain enum erated intendonal tortsfrom theFTCA'Swaiverofsovereignimmunitp Specifkally,j2680$)makesclearthat theU nited Statescannotbeheld liable for (h)Any clnim arising outofassault,battery,falseimprisonment, false arrest, m alicious ptosecudon, abuse of process, libel, slander,m isrepresentation,deceit,orinterference with contract rights. 28USCA j2680$).CountOnestillseekstodoexactlythis.CountOneseekstoholdthe United Statesliable through res ondeatsu eriozliability fotSova'salleged assatzltand battery ofSharrer.The FTCA 'Swaiverofsovereign im m unity doesnotextend to Sharrer's clnim sin CountOne. SharzerarguesthatSheridanv.UnitedStates,487U.S.392(1988),petvnitsherto hold the United Statesliable foz Sova'salleged acts.Sheridan'sholding,how ever,applied to the specific situadon ofaplnintiffalleging two torts- one an assaultozbattery and the other an actofnegligence.Ldaat401.CountOneallegesres ondeatsu eriorliabilityitlattempdng to hold theU nited Statesliable foran intendonaltort,notan actofnegligence.A sthis w ould rendertheU nited Statesliableforassaultand battery,two enum erated totts,Count O neisclearly barred by theintentionaltortsexcepdon. Even ifCountO ne broughtaclnim ofnegligence,ratherthan res ondeatsu erior liability forassaultand battery,Sheridan'slogicw ould notapply.The clnim saddtessed irz Sheridan arose when an obviouslyintoxicated off-duty servicem an & ed sevetalrifle shots intoan automobile,injuring thepassengerplaintiffs.487U.S.at394.Earlier,threenaval com sm en had found theintoxicated servicenïan arm ed and clulnk in aBethesdaN aval Hospitalbuilding.Ld.aat395.Thecom sm en attempted totakelnim to theemergencyroom, buttheserviceman brandished hisrifleandthecom smen fled.LdaThethreetookno farther action toapprehend theserviceman.J. i TheSupremeCourtruled thattavoN avycom smen rnkht,understatelaw,haveadutytopreventthisfozeseeableassault,even iftheintoxicated serdceman had notbeen agovernmentemployee.J-1. L at401Becausethegovernm entffhad voluntarily adoptgedqregtzladonsthatprohibitthepossession offlreatm son thenavalbase and thatrequireallpersonnelto reportthepresenceofanysuch flrearm,and gthecorpsmen hadjftzrthervoluntarilyundertakgen)to providecareto aperson who wasvisiblyclrllnkand visiblyat-med,''theneglkenceofthecom smencouldgiverisetoabasisofliabilitythatwas completelyindependentfrom theserviceman'semploymentstams.J-dx Tllisisnotthesittzadon athand- the United States'responsibility to preventSova's alleged actionswasbased entitely on Sova's statusasa USPS em ployee.SeeECF N o.53,at 5.TheU nited Stateshasno dutyindependentofSova'sfederalem ploym entstatusto protect Sharrerfzom sexualassault.SeeBolesv.United States,3 F.Supp.3d 491,501 (M .D.N.C. 2014)(federalemployershaveno dutyto protectothersfrom theiremployeeswhen the alleged dutyisbased entirely on the tortfeasor'sem ploym entreladonship with the United States).Withnoindependentbasisforliability,Sheridan'sinterpretadonofj2680$)cannot supportCountO ne.CountO nem ustbe D ISM ISSED . Sharreralleged federaljurisdicdon overherclsimsagainsttheUnited Statesplzrsuant to28U.S.C.j13464$(1)and supplementaljllrisdicéonoverherstatecommonlaw tort clnim againstSovapursuantto 28U.S.C.j1367.Supplementalfederaljlntisdicdon overa statelaw clnim dependson thecourt'soriginaljurisdicéon overatleastoneothetclnim.See 28U.S.C.j1367(c)rThedistdctcouztsmaydeclinetoexercisesupplementaljurisdicdon overacllim undersubsection (a)if ...(3)thedisttictcourthasdisrnissed allclnimsover which ithasorigm 'aljlzrisdiction.').CountOneasitappliesto Sovamustthereforealsobe D ISM ISSE D . I5T. CountTwo allegesthattllèUnited Statescommitted negligentretendon byTdplaclingj gshazzezjin aposition whezeSovawould haveaccesstopotenéalvictimsincluding gshatterq orwhere the threatened hnt'm w ould com e to pass.''ECF N o.53,at6.Thislanguagewas presentin the originalCom plaint;Sharrernow addsthatffthe governm entaldefendantshad aduty to use reasonable care to invesdgatethecom pbintsand takeadequate rem edial m easlzresto preventand stop theharassm entand assaultsand batteries,''and thatthey breàched tlaisduty.J-daElsewherein theAmended Complaint,SharrerallegesthattheUnited Statesand USPS had ç<azero tolerancepolicy''pzohibidng sexualhatassm entand assault.1d. CountTwo asalleged in theAm ended Com plaintis stillbarred by the discreéonary funcéon excepdon to the FTCA,aspteviously expbined by the court.ECF N o.51,at11. The disctetionary funcdon exception resew esim munity forany clnim fibased upon the exercise orperform ance orthefailure to exerciseotperform a discretionary function orduty onthepartofafederalagencyoranemployee''ofthegovernment.28U.S.C.j2680(a); McMellonv.UrlitedStates,387F.3d329,335(4th Ciz.2004).Todete- ineifconductfalls underthediscredonaryfuncdon excepdon,courtsapplyatwo-pronged test:(1)f<acotut considerswhetherthechallengedgovernmentalconductinvolvesan elementofjudgmentor choicey''Richv.United States,811F.3d 140,144 (4th Cir.2015)(cidngUrlited Statesv. Gaubert,499U.S.315,322 (1991))9and (2)ifthechallenged conductdoesitwolvean elementofjudgment,thecourtmustthendeterrninewhetherthejudgmentwasonethatthe exceptionwasdesignedtoprotect,namely,ajudgmentbasedonconsidetaéonsofpublic policy.''Itich,811F.3d at144 (citingGaubert,499U.S.at322-23).ftW hen established governm entalpolicy,asexpressed orim plied by stam te,reguladon,oragency guidelines, allowsa G overnm entagentto exercise discretion,itm ustbe presllm ed thattheagent'sacts are grounded in policywhen exetcising thatdiscretion.''Gaubert,499 U.S.at324.ffconduct doesnotinvolveanelementofjudgmentorchoiceifafederalstatazte,regtzladon,orpolicy specifically prescribesit.''W illiam sv.United States.N o.1:18-CV-00021,2018K 5077652, at*2(W .D.Va.Oct.18,2018).Tomakethisdeteemination,thecouttmustTdlook to the nattzreofthechallenged decision in an objective,orgenetalsense,and askwhetherthat decision isonewhich w ewotzld expectinherently to be grounded in consideradonsof P(jlicy-''Id. A ffzero tolerance''standard prohibiting sexualharassm entestablishesstrict requitem entsforem ployees,butonly genetalpolicy form anagem ent.Such apolicy m akes clearthatSova'sbehaviorw asproscribed;itdoesnotestablish any stdctm andatesoi requirem entsasto how to inveségatereportsofharassm entorhow to punish accused harassers.Thecourthasnoted thatUSPS hasthe rightTfto hire,prom ote,transfer,assign, and retain,discharge,ottake otherdisciplinaty action'?againstitsem ployeesand the discretion Tfto dete= inethem ethod,m eansandpersonnelbywllich gitsoperationsjareto beconducted,';39U.S.C.j1001(e);aTfkerotolerancepolicy':againstsexualharassment ffgdoeslnotsatisfyGauberfs...specifk prescripdonreqpairementy':Shanskyv.UnitedStates, 164F.3d 688,691 (1stCir.1999). A sstated in itsearlierM em orandum Opinion,decisionsregarding the lniting, supervision,and retention ofem ployeesm eetbot.h prongsofthediscretionary funcéon test, asthesedecisionsffinvolveanelementofjudgmentozchoice,''mch,811F.3dat144,and are çfbased on consideraéonsofpublic policp''id.. sSee e. .,Suterv.United States.441 F.3d 306,312n.6(4thCit.2006)Soldingthattheclcim thattheFBInegligentlyhiredand supervisedan agentwasbarredbythediscretionaryfunction exception);LeRose v.United States,285F.App'x 93,97 (4th Cit.2008)(<fThegfederalBureau ofPrison's (f<BOP'))decisionsregardingthelniting,superdsion,andretenéon gofBOP employee/alleged tortfeasorqarepreciselythetypeofdecisionsthatareprotectedunderthe discreéonaryfunction excepéon.');Andersonv.United States,No.8:12cv3203,2015WL 9918406O .S.C.Oct.9,2015)(fTIntheFourthCitcuit,decisionsregarclingthelniting, supervision,andretentionofemployeesareprotected undertheLliscreéonaryf'uncdon excepdon to theFTCA.'RI.SeealsoBaum v.United States,986F.2d 716,720-21(4th Cir. 1993)(employeeretention ffisgadecision)wllichweexpectinherentlytobegroundedin considerationsofpolicy.7).TheUnited StatescannotbeheldliableforUSPS'Sretendon of Sova.CountTwo q411beD ISM ISSE D . V. Forthe reasonsexplained above and thereasonsexplained in thecourt'sprevious M em orandum O pinion,ECF N o.51,the courtwillGRAN T the United States'm odon and DISM ISSwith prejudicetheAmended Complaintasitappliesto theUnited States. Asthecourt'sjurisdicdon wasdependenton theinvocadon offederalsubjectmatter judsdictionunder28U.S.C.j13464$(1)throughtheclnimsbroughtpursuanttotheFTEA, 10 thecouttnow lackssupplementaljurisdictionoverthestate1aw cbimsbroughtagninstSova. CountO neasitrelatesto Sovawillalso beD ISM ISSED . Asallcbim sin thiscase havebeen clisnnissed,the clerk isD IRE CTED to strikethis case from the docketofthecotut. An appropriateO rderwillbeentered. Enteted: & W - 2.. *' --2JD/) f+f ., wrZ' M7 . ' , ;. , , ! ::'. M ichaelF.U rbans ' EhiefUnited St sDisttictludge '
]]>
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.
