Bush v. Gonzalez ( 2011 )

a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FILED
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MAY - 5 2011
Clark, U.S. Diskict & Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia
Barbara M. Bush, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 11 J~:JR
)
Headquarters for U.S. Attorney General )
Gonzalez et aI., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its review of the 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).
The plaintiff is a resident of Hyattsville, Maryland, suing the United States for allegedly
detaining her without due process of law. See Complaint at 2. Although the complaint lacks
clarity and cohesion, the plaintiff seems to allege that while confined at a federal prison for a
mental competency evaluation, she was interrogated and tortured. She seeks $50,000 in damages
"for the imprisonment and torture." !d. at 7.
A claim for monetary damages against the United States is cognizable under the Federal
Tort Claims Act ("FTC A"), 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 GAFCorp. 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). The plaintiff has not indicated that she exhausted her administrative
remedies under the FTCA. Therefore, the complaint will be dismissed. 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 FTCA claim] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.").)
~/),ib~
nit States DIstnct Judge
Date: April 31L, 2011
) A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
2