Opinion
Civil No. 09-1231-HA.
February 25, 2010
ORDER
Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed what appears to be a tort claim against the United States Secret Service requesting monetary damages for "[i]mproper responding to C.I. reports by Burlington, Boston, Portland leading to job loss." Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). For the following reasons, defendant's Motion to Dismiss [3] is GRANTED.
The Ninth Circuit upholds a "policy of liberal construction in favor of pro se litigants." Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998). Litigants have a statutory right to self-representation in civil matters, see 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (1982), and are entitled to meaningful access to the courts. Rand, 154 F.3d at 957, citing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 823 (1977); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 579 (1974). "Consequently, we tolerate informalities from civil pro se litigants." Id. (citations omitted).
Nevertheless, " [p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants," and a district court may grant a well-taken motion for dismissal. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted).
Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because plaintiff failed to first present his claim to the United States Secret Service for administrative disposition in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing a tort claim against the United States. Id.; McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 111 (1993). Such a failure requires dismissal.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons provided, this court concludes defendant's Motion to Dismiss [3] must be GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.