Opinion
Civil Action No. 11 1580
08-31-2011
Audrey Carter, Plaintiff, v. General Martin Dempsey, et al., Defendants.
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 is a resident of Burlington, New Jersey, suing a number of high-level military officials, Attorney General Eric Holder, the FBI, the CIA, "Congress," the Los Angeles Times and the "Dailey News." Compl. Caption. She alleges, inter alia, that the government discriminated against her and "men and woman [sic] of the military by not allowing [her] to pass off information as a Good Samaritan to protect and allow equal treatment to all military." Compl. at 1. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief "to have the government stop ignoring the troops' complaints [and to] provide them with a mediator Activist Audrey Carter or a named party to assist them with military complaints, issues and needs." Id. She also seeks an investigation of issues she allegedly set forth in a letter to General Martin Dempsey dated June 27, 2011. Finally, plaintiff seeks $9,999 for violations of the "Good Samaritan Law, while trying to help the troops . . . ." Id.
The allegations of the complaint "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, _____ F. Supp.2d _____ , 2011 WL 1460432, at * 1 (D.D.C. Apr. 18, 2011) ("A 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). In addition, plaintiff has not established her standing to sue on behalf of members of the United States military, and "[t]he defect of standing is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction." Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Finally, 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 presenting] the claim to the appropriate Federal agency. ..." 28 U.S.C. § 2675. Plaintiff has not indicated that she exhausted her administrative remedies, and the exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. See 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. U.S. Postal Service, 937 F. Supp. 11,14 (D.D.C. 1996); see also 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."). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
________________________________
United States District Judge