Opinion
Civil Action 23-03921 (UNA)
02-06-2024
SHERI C. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint against the U.S. Copyright Office and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). It is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id.
The United States and components like the U.S. Copyright Office may be sued only upon consent, United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980) (citation omitted), and “the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit,” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). A waiver of the United States' immunity “must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text, and [it cannot] be implied.” Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (citations omitted). Thus, a plaintiff's failure to plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction warrants dismissal of the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff, a resident of Atlanta, Georgia, filed initially a “Complaint for a Civil Case Alleging Negligence,” ECF No. 1, and subsequently a “Summary Complaint With Injunction Request,” ECF No. 3 (Am. Compl.), albeit “for loss of revenue[,]” id. at 1. The pleadings are unclear; however, both demand $15 million for Defendant's alleged failure to protect Plaintiff's creations from copyright infringement. See Am. Compl. at 2 (“I'm suing The U.S. Copyright Office for everyone that [sic] has stolen my creations in which I paid The U.S. Copyright Office to ‘protect' and to prevent such acts of copyright infringement from happening without penalty.”). Allegedly, Plaintiff “was misled to believe that” her music and “ALL . . . creative aspects of [her] vocal creations . . . were protected by the copyrights [she] paid for.” Id. at 1 (capitalization in original).
Plaintiff has not asserted a valid waiver of the United States' immunity. Regardless, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives the United States' immunity for certain claims for money damages. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2674, 2679-80; Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 217-18 (2008) (summarizing circumstances). Before maintaining a lawsuit, however, an FTCA claimant must exhaust her administrative remedies by presenting the claim to the appropriate federal agency and obtaining a final written denial of the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). If an agency fails to render a decision within six months after the claim is submitted, the claimant may proceed to court “any time thereafter” on what is “deemed” to be “a final denial.” Id.
The subheading in the caption of the initial complaint cites “28 U.S.C. § 1332; Diversity of Citizenship” but this jurisdictional provision does not apply to the United States because it is not a “citizen.” Cf. Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409, 412 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (noting that “[t]he Supreme Court long has held that states,” as non-citizens, “are not subject to diversity jurisdiction under [§ 1332]”); see also Saahir v. United States, 2023 WL 4931084, at *3 (M.D. Fla., Mar. 20, 2023) (noting that “the diversity statute does not authorize suits against the United States or its agencies; so, claims brought against the United States cannot be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1332”) (cleaned up)).
Nothing suggests that Plaintiff pursued, much less exhausted, her administrative remedies under the FTCA, and in this circuit, the FTCA's exhaustion requirement is “jurisdictional.” Simpkins v. D.C. Gov't, 108 F.3d 366, 371 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)); Norton v. United States, 530 F.Supp.3d 1, 6-7 (D.D.C. 2021) (collecting cases). Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order.