Opinion
NO. 3-04-CV-1568-B.
August 13, 2004
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This pro se prisoner civil action has been referred to the United States magistrate judge for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge are as follow:
The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides, in pertinent part, that:
The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A-(a). The statute applies to any suit by a prisoner against certain government officials or entities regardless of whether the prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579 (5th Cir. 1998).
I.
On May 23, 2002, Plaintiff Todd E. Matthews was transferred from a federal prison in La Tuna, Texas to FCI-Seagoville, Texas. Plaintiff was initially housed in the federal detention center until space became available in the prison. Upon his release from the detention center, plaintiff discovered that three boxes of legal documents had been lost or misplaced by the prison staff. These documents consist of briefs, legal memoranda, retainer agreements, contracts, correspondence, and personal diaries. After exhausting his administrative remedies and rejecting a $140 settlement offer, plaintiff filed this suit in federal district court to recover the value of his lost property. Plaintiff also seeks compensation for emotional distress and punitive damages. Process has been withheld pending a preliminary screening of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
II.
A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). Federal jurisdiction is proper if the complaint states a claim arising under federal law. Fragumar Corp., N.V. v. Dunlap, 685 F.2d 127, 128 (5th Cir. 1982). In making this jurisdictional determination, the court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true. Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420, 424 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 1059 (2002). Dismissal is warranted if those allegations, together with any undisputed facts and the court's resolution of disputed material facts, establish that there is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction. See Stockman v. Federal Election Comm'n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1990); Barrera-Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996).
III.
The federal government and its agents and employees are generally immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See Davis v. United States, 961 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1991); Williamson v. Dep't of Agriculture, 815 F.2d 368, 373 (5th Cir. 1987). However, the government has accepted liability for common torts to the same extent and in the same manner as liability would attach to private individuals in similar circumstances. Williamson, 815 F.2d at 373. The Federal Tort Claims Act is the exclusive remedy for torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2674; McGuire v. Turnbo, 137 F.3d 321, 324 (5th Cir. 1998). The relevant jurisdictional statute provides, in pertinent part:
[T]he district courts . . . shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, . . . for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). By its terms, the FTCA specifically excludes "any claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax or customs duty, or the detention of any goods or merchandise by any officer of customs or any other law enforcement officer." Id. § 2680(c) (emphasis added). The Fifth Circuit has interpreted this exception broadly to include "any claim based on the detention of goods by any federal law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties." Halverson v. United States, 972 F.2d 654, 656 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1297 (1993). The term "federal law enforcement officers" includes federal prison employees. See Hatten v. White, 275 F.3d 1208, 1210 (10th Cir. 2002); Crawford v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 123 F. Supp.2d 1012, 1015 (S.D. Miss. 2000).
Plaintiff's claim arises wholly out of the negligent handling of his legal materials by federal prison employees. Because the United States has not waived sovereign immunity with respect to such a claim, this court lacks jurisdiction under the FTCA. See Greer v. United States, 2002 WL 31643018 at *3 (D. Kan. Nov. 12, 2002), aff'd, 2003 WL 21794351 (10th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 2812 (2004) (dismissing FTCA suit brought by prisoner alleging that federal prison officials lost legal materials).
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff's complaint should be summarily dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.