United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Cynthia Reed Eddy United States Magistrate Judge
before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by the United
States Government and Office of Attorney General
(collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), with
brief in support. (ECF Nos. 16 and 17). Plaintiff filed a
response in opposition (ECF No. 22), to which Defendants
filed a reply. (ECF No. 24). The matter is fully briefed and
ripe for disposition.
Factual and Procedural Background
October 10, 2007, Plaintiff pled guilty in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to
one count of conspiracy to possess and possess with intent to
distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and
one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and (b)(1)(C).
(2:06-cr-00316: ECF No. 290; 2:07-cr-00101: ECF No. 42). On
January 8, 2008, Plaintiff was sentenced to a term of
sixty-five (65) months' imprisonment to be followed by a
term of supervised release of six (6) years. Plaintiff was
released to supervision on December 1, 2011. (2:06-cr-00316:
ECF No. 600 at 2).
October 10, 2012, Plaintiff appeared with counsel before the
Court for a supervised release and revocation hearing.
Thereafter, Plaintiff was committed to the United States BOP
in order to complete a mental health evaluation. On January
4, 2013, following a competency hearing, Plaintiff was
committed to the custody of the Attorney General for
restorative hospitalization. On December 20, 2013, the Court
found that further custody of Plaintiff by the Attorney
General for purposes of evaluation and treatment was not
warranted and Plaintiff was released from custody.
January 21, 2016, the U.S. Probation Officer requested that
Plaintiff be discharged from supervision, prior to its
original expiration date. On February 2, 2016, without
objection from the parties, the court terminated
filed his initial Complaint in this case on March 8, 2017.
(ECF No. 1). On May 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, which remains his operative pleading. (ECF No.
14). Plaintiff claims that he was illegally detained between
October 2012 and December 2013, based on false reports of
supervision violations by his U.S. probation officer. As a
result of his detention, Plaintiff claims that he lost his
dating website business and seeks $500 million in damages.
Plaintiff's claims sound in negligence. The Federal Tort
Claims Act authorizes “damages to be recovered against
the United States for harm caused by the negligent or
wrongful conduct of Government employees, to the extent that
a private person would be liable under the law of the place
where the conduct occurred.” Boyle v. United
Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 511 (1988) (citing 28
U.S.C. § 1346(b)).
filed the instant motion under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), as well as under 12(b)(6). First,
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims should be
dismissed in their entirety since he failed to exhaust his
Administrative remedies as required. This argument is based
on Rule 12(b)(1). Next, Defendants argue that the Office of
the Attorney General should be dismissed because under the
FTCA the United States of America is the only proper party
defendant, not the federal agency or an individual federal
Standard of Review
Challenge to Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
of a complaint is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims pled therein. A
12(b)(1) motion may challenge jurisdiction based on the face
of the complaint or its existence in fact. In re Horizon
Healthcare Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625,
632 (3d Cir. 2017) (citing Davis v. Wells, 824 F.3d
333, 346 (3d Cir. 2016)). When the challenge is facial, the
court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint and draw reasonable inferences in favor of the
plaintiff. Mortensen v. First Fed. Savings and Loan
Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). When the
challenge is factual, however, the court is not bound by the
allegations in the pleadings. Id. Therefore,
“no presumptive truthfulness attaches to
plaintiff's allegations” for factual challenges.
Id. Regardless of whether the challenge is facial or
factual, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion.
the Court deems Defendants as making a factual challenge to
jurisdiction. Thus, the Court will consider the Declaration
attached to Defendants' brief with respect to their Rule