Opinion
No. 03 Civ. 2206 (TPG).
March 31, 2005
Opinion
In this action plaintiffs allege wrongful acts in connection with an attempted rescue by the Coast Guard off the south coast of Long Island Sound. Plaintiffs bring their claims pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 ("FTCA"), as well as under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and New York law.
Defendant United States of America previously moved to dismiss claims against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, lack of service of process, and failure to state a claim. The motion was granted by this Court on the jurisdictional ground in an opinion dated March 30, 2004. The Court held that plaintiffs' claims against the United States arise in admiralty. Therefore, such claims must be brought pursuant to the Suits in Admiralty Act ("SIAA"). The Court held that plaintiffs' claims against the United States are not covered by the waiver of sovereign immunity provided by the SIAA.
The remaining defendants, the United States Coast Guard (the "Coast Guard"), John Doe and Richard Roe, unidentified Coast Guard seamen sued in their official capacity, were not joined in the earlier motion. The current motion is to dismiss as to these defendants pursuant to Rules 4(m), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs cross-move to obtain discovery as to the names and other information as to the John Doe and Richard Roe defendants.
The motion to dismiss is granted. The cross-motion is denied.
DISCUSSION
The defendants first argue that the Complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
The United States enjoys sovereign immunity from lawsuits except "as it consents to be sued" and "the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction."United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980) (quotingUnited States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941)). "Because an action against a federal agency or federal officers in their official capacities is essentially a suit against the United States, such suits are also barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, unless such immunity is waived." Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 510 (2d Cir. 1994). Therefore, federal subject matter jurisdiction does not exist in an action against a federal agency such as the Coast Guard or federal employees sued in their official capacity unless the United States has waived its sovereign immunity and the specific conditions for waiver have been met. See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994).
The suit brought against the Coast Guard and the federal employees in their official capacities is essentially a suit against the United States insofar as the doctrine of sovereign immunity is concerned. Therefore, the action is dismissed as against these remaining defendants.
There is no purpose to be served in providing the discovery requested in the cross-motion. The cross-motion is denied.
SO ORDERED.