LOPEZ MARTINEZ v. LECHLEITNER et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JUAN MIGUEL LOPEZ-MARTINEZ, 	:
Plaintiff 	:
v. 	: Case No. 3:23-cv-290-SLH-KAP
PATRICK “P.J.” LECHLEITNER, et al., 	:
Defendants 	:
Memorandum Order
Plaintiff filed a pro se civil suit using a form complaint (Form Pro Se 15) alleging
that while he was a federal detainee, a data breach by some John Doe federal employee
caused him injury. He named as defendants Garland, Mayorkas, Lechleitner and John
Doe, that is, the Attorney General and the Secretary and two employees of the Department
of Homeland Security. Plaintiff checked the boxes in the form complaint asserting that
his claim was against them only in their official capacities. Because courts are required to
interpret pro se complaints liberally I analyzed the complaint as if plaintiff had also
named the defendants in their personal capacities (in other words attempted to state a
Bivens claim against Garland, Mayorkas, and Lechleitner) and explained why there was
no Bivens claim. Plaintiff, despite being granted an extension of time, did not file
objections. He did file a motion to change venue that disregarded the fact that my
recommendation is pending. I denied it, in the course of which I explained that he could
not sue the defendants in their official capacities because that is equivalent to suing the
United States, that the United States is immune from suit except as provided in the
Federal Tort Claims Act, and that plaintiff had not made a claim under the Federal Tort
Claims Act nor sought to convert this matter to a Federal Tort Claims Act complaint.
Despite that broad hint in October 2024, plaintiff did not seek to amend his
complaint (in this district, anyway) or even seek another extension to file objections to
my pending recommendation. Almost exactly a year later the matter was stayed by a form
order generated by the Chief Judge and then unstayed a month later by a form order
generated by the Chief Judge in response to the government shutdown. The latter order
called on counsel for the government to propose any updates in the schedule. The United
States responded with a notice at ECF no. 16 substituting the current office holders for
the defendants named in the original complaint and suggesting that no update to the
schedule is necessary.
To clarify things for the plaintiff: defendants sued in their official capacity are the
equivalent of the government they work for. Since plaintiff only sued the original
defendants in their official capacities it is appropriate to substitute the current office
holders 	for 	original 	named 	defendants 	Garland, 	Mayorkas, 	and 	Lechleitner. 	I
Case 3:23-cv-00290-NBF-KAP Document 17 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 2

2
recommended dismissal without leave to amend as to the three original named
defendants because the plaintiff cannot sue them -either the former office holders or the
current office holders- in their official capacities due to sovereign immunity, and without
leave to amend the complaint because any individual capacity suit against Garland,
Mayorkas, and Lechleitner is futile as well.
As Judge Gilbert observed in Snowden v. Henning, 2021 WL 806724 at *5 (S.D.
Ill. Mar. 3, 2021), rev'd on other grounds, 72 F.4th 237 (7th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 145
S.Ct. 137 (October 7, 2024), a plaintiff may have good reasons for not naming the United
States in a complaint or asserting an FTCA claim, because
[f]or one thing, the FTCA forbids a victim to file suit against the United States
until first presenting an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency in an
attempt to resolve it without litigation. 28 U.S.C.§ 2672. Failure to do so can cost the
plaintiff the opportunity to recover damages. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106,
113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993). Plaintiff is in the best position to decide
whether and when to bring an FTCA claim against the United States.
Plaintiff has not in this case named the United States nor attempted to state a claim under
the FTCA. Because he has stated no claim against the defendants in their official capacities
and cannot do so, and because he has stated no claim against the defendants in their
individual capacities and can state no claim against Garland, Mayorkas, and Lechleitner
in their individual capacities, my unobjected to Report and Recommendation does not
need to be updated.
The Clerk is ordered to substitute the current office holders (identified in ECF no.
16) as defendants in lieu of Garland, Mayorkas, and Lechleitner. Updating the defendants
does not re-open the time for plaintiff to file objections.
DATE: December 10, 2025
Keith A. Pesto,
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice by ECF to counsel and by U.S. Mail to:
Juan Miguel Lopez-Martinez
516 N. New Street
Allentown, PA 18102
Case 3:23-cv-00290-NBF-KAP Document 17 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 2