Opinion
Civil Action No. 99-3494, Section "K"(5)
August 18, 2000
ORDER
Before the court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the United States Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA"). For the reasons that follow, the court finds that the motion has merit and should be granted.
I. Background
This action arises out of an allegedly unlawful search of an apartment occupied by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs named as defendants the DOJ, DEA, and DEA Special Agent David Drasutis ("Drasutis"), among others. The court previously granted summary judgment in favor of Drasutis and denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, finding that Drasutis enjoyed qualified immunity. Now, the DEA and DOJ have moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims against them, specifically, the § 1983 claim and the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA").
II. Standard
Summary judgment should be granted only where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In reviewing this motion, the court views all facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1357, 89 LEd. 2d 538 (1986). If, taken as a whole, the record could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no "genuine issue for trial." Id. With this standard in mind, the court now turns to the parties' arguments.
III. Analysis
A. Liability Under Bivens
First, defendants point out that § 1983 applies only to state actors. The Supreme Court, however, has recognized a comparable cause of action against federal actors. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971). The Supreme Court has also held that a plaintiff cannot assert a Bivens cause of action for damages against a federal agency, but only against individual federal agents. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 114 S.Ct. 996, 1006 (1994). Therefore, the Bivens claims against the DOJ and DEA must be dismissed.
B. Liability Under the FTCA
Defendants argue that the FTCA claims should be dismissed because the United States, rather than a federal agency, is the proper defendant. McGuire v. Turnbo, 137 F.3d 321, 324 (5th Cir. 1998).
The FTCA waives the United States' sovereign immunity from tort suits, 28 U.S.C. § 2674, and is the exclusive remedy for compensation for a federal employee's tortious acts committed in the scope of employment. 28 U.S.C. § 2679. "To sue successfully under the FTCA, a plaintiff must name the United States as the sole defendant." McGuire, 137 F.3d at 324 ( citing Atorie Air, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration, 942 F.2d 954, 957 (5th Cir. 1991)).
Accordingly, plaintiffs claims against the DOJ and DEA must be dismissed. Nonetheless, plaintiffs may amend their complaint to assert an FTCA against the United States within 15 days of entry of this order.
In light of the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement is hereby GRANTED with respect to plaintiffs' Bivens and FTCA claims against the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs may amend their complaint within 15 days of entry of this order to name the United States as an additional defendant.