Dickey v. United States of America et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANTWAIN DICKEY 	* 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-1470
VERSUS 	* 	JUDGE ELDON E. FALLON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND 	* 	MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEBRA SMITH 	KAREN WELLS ROBY
* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	*
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) filed by Defendants, the United States of America and Debra Smith. R.
Doc. 14. Plaintiff Antwain Dickey filed a notice of no opposition. R. Doc. 16. Considering the
record, briefing, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS the motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND & PRESENT MOTION
This is a Federal Torts Claims Act (“FTCA”) suit that arises out of a car accident. R. Doc.
1. Plaintiff asserts negligence claims against the United States of America and Debra Smith,
alleging that Debra Smith struck Plaintiff’s vehicle with the United States Postal Services vehicle
she was operating while in the course and scope of her employment. Id. at 2–3.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that
the FTCA “provides that a suit against the United States shall be the exclusive remedy for persons
with claims for damages resulting from the actions of federal employees taken within the scope of
their office or employment.” R. Doc. 14-1 at 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1)). Defendants attached
to the motion a certification signed by the Assistant United States Attorney and Civil Division
Chief stating that Debra Smith was “acting within the scope of her FTCA-covered employment at
the time of the subject accident.” R. Doc. 14-3. Therefore, Defendants press, Plaintiff cannot state
Case 2:25-cv-01470-EEF-KWR Document 17 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 3

2
a cognizable claim against Debra Smith under the FTCA, and that the United States is the only
proper defendant in this suit. Plaintiff filed a notice of no opposition. R. Doc. 16.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD & ANALYSIS
Motions filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allow a party to seek
dismissal of a complaint based on “lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” The burden of proof of
the presence of subject matter jurisdiction is on the party asserting jurisdiction. Ramming v. United
States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). District courts can dismiss suits for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction “‘on any one of three separate bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint
supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by
undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.’” Barrera-Montenegro v. United
States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Ynclan v. Dep’t of Air Force, 943 F.2d 1388,
1390 (5th Cir. 1991)).
Plaintiff pleaded in his complaint that Debra Smith was in the course and scope of her
employment when she hit his car with a USPS vehicle. R. Doc. 1 at 3. Defendants placed into the
record, and Plaintiff does not dispute, the fact that the local Civil Division Chief certified that on
the record presently available to him, Debra Smith was within the course and scope of her FTCA-
covered employment at the time of the subject car accident. R. Doc. 14-3. The FTCA plainly
provides that “[u]pon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting
within the scope of [her] office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim
arise, any civil action . . . shall be deemed an action against the United States . . . and the United
States shall be substituted as the party defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1).
It is well settled in this district and “beyond dispute that the United States, and not the
responsible . . . employee, is the proper party defendant in a Federal Tort Claims Act suit.” Galvin
Case 2:25-cv-01470-EEF-KWR Document 17 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 3

3
v. OSHA, 860 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir. 1988); see also McGuire v. Turnbo, 137 F.3d 321, 324 (5th
Cir. 1998) (“To sue successfully under the FTCA, a plaintiff must name the United States as the
sole defendant.”). Therefore, because there is record evidence certifying that Debra Smith was
indeed in the course and scope of her employment, the FTCA provides that the United States is
the only proper defendant in this suit. The Court thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s claims against Debra Smith.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss, R. Doc. 14, is GRANTED. Defendant Debra
Smith is hereby dismissed with prejudice from the instant case.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of December, 2025.
THE HONORABLE ELDON E. FALLON
Case 2:25-cv-01470-EEF-KWR Document 17 Filed 12/17/25 Page 3 of 3