Phillips v. United States ( 2011 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FILED
NOV - 3 ?J'l
",
Clerk ' U. S. D'IS tnet & Bankruptc
.
David P. Phillips, ) I"ourts fur the Distr,ct of COllJmda
)
Plaintift~ )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. ...1 1. J.; l
)
U.S.A., )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and
application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring
dismissal of an action "at any time" the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).
Plaintiff sues the United States for allegedly "refus[ing] to show paperwork in accordance
for [sic] investigation of terror." Compl. He also alleges that defendant neglected to investigate
"the theft of art ... through torture." Jd. Plaintiff seeks $30 trillion in damages.
A claim for monetary damages against the United States is cognizable under the Federal
Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq. Such a claim is maintainable, however,
only after the plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies by "first present[ing] the claim to
the appropriate Federal agency .... " 28 U.S.C. § 2675. This exhaustion requirement is
jurisdictional. See Abdurrahman v. Engstrom, 168 Fed.Appx. 445, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per
curiam) ("[T]he district court properly dismissed case [based on unexhausted FTC A claim] for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction."); accord GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 917-20
(D.C. Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808,809 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Stokes v. US.
Postal Service, 937 F. Supp. 11, 14 (D.D.C. 1996).
.3
The plaintiff has not indicated that he exhausted his administrative remedies under the
FTC A. Furthermore, the allegations "constitute the sort of patently insubstantial claims" that
deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006. 1010
(D.C. Cir. 2009); see Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp.2d 177, 178 (D.D.C. 2011) CA district
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint 'is patently insubstantial, presenting
no federal question suitable for decision.''') (quoting Tooley, 586 F.3d at 1009). Hence, the
Court, finding it impossible for plaintitIto overcome the jurisdictional barrier, will dismiss this
action with prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: October f (J , 2011
2