UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ronald Satish Emrit, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 20-379 (UNA)
)
Federal Bureau of Investigation, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and
dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
(requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” it determines that subject matter
jurisdiction is wanting).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute,” and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited
jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations
omitted). Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States and its agencies may be
sued only upon consent, which must be clear and unequivocal. United States v. Mitchell, 445
U.S. 535, 538 (1980) (citation omitted). A waiver of sovereign immunity “must be
unequivocally expressed in statutory text, and [it cannot] be implied.” Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S.
187, 192 (1996) (citations omitted). A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead
facts that bring the suit within the court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead
such facts warrants dismissal of the action.
1
Plaintiff, a resident of Sarasota, Florida, has sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation for
alleged tortious conduct and violations of the Constitution and federal laws. See Compl. ¶¶ 1-4.
For each claim, plaintiff alleges that the FBI racially profiled him “as an Arab, Middle Easterner,
or Muslim around 2001[.]” Id. ¶¶ 74, 78, 82, 84, 86, 91, 93, 97, 101. He also suggests that the
FBI targeted him for surveillance because he “had a Cuban fiance [sic] in 1999[.]” Id. Plaintiff
seeks $80,000 in monetary damages. Compl. at 32.
Apart from the fact that this action comes well beyond the six-year statute of limitations
for suing the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), Congress has not waived the federal
government’s immunity from lawsuits based on constitutional violations. Fed. Deposit Ins.
Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 478 (1994). The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1346(b), 2671-80, waives the federal government’s immunity for certain personal injury
claims, and it is the only plausible basis for plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages. See id.
§ 2679 (the remedies under the FTCA are “exclusive”). But before proceeding in federal court,
the complainant must have first presented the claim “to the appropriate Federal agency” and
obtained a final written denial or allowed six months to pass without a final disposition. 28
U.S.C. § 2675(a). Under the law of this circuit, the presentment requirement is “jurisdictional.”
Simpkins v. District of Columbia Gov’t, 108 F.3d 366, 371 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Nothing in the
complaint suggests that plaintiff has pursued his administrative remedy under the FTCA.
Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum
Opinion.
_________s/_____________
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
Date: April 6, 2020 United States District Judge
2