Teresa Love et al. v. Rachel Pond et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada grants in part the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss an action by pro se plaintiffs seeking benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. The court also grants the motion to strike an untimely supplemental brief, denies motions for leave to file a surreply and a jury-trial preservation order, and strikes the plaintiffs’ notices. The court concludes that several asserted statutory and constitutional provisions do not establish jurisdiction or a viable claim, while allowing the First Amendment claim to be amended.

Holdings

1. The APA does not provide an independent jurisdictional basis and did not authorize plaintiffs' demand for money damages or interest because plaintiffs identified no separate substantive source of law fairly interpreted as mandating compensation by the federal government.
2. The Part E claim was untimely because EEOICPA provides a 60-day deadline for judicial review and the complaint was filed long after the Department of Labor's final decision.
3. Neither the Seventh Amendment nor Article III, Section 2, independently confers subject-matter jurisdiction.
4. Plaintiffs failed to state an FTCA claim and were barred from bringing one because they did not allege timely presentment of an administrative claim before filing suit; the FTCA claim was dismissed with prejudice.
5. The cited criminal statutes did not create private causes of action or confer jurisdiction, so plaintiffs' claims under those statutes were dismissed with prejudice.
6. Plaintiffs' First and Fifth Amendment claims failed as pleaded. The court dismissed them without prejudice and granted leave to amend, while holding that the asserted due-process Bivens theory could not be extended on the allegations presented.
7. Plaintiffs were granted limited leave to file a second amended complaint asserting only First and Fifth Amendment Bivens claims, without adding new claims or defendants.
8. The motion to preserve or obtain a jury trial was denied because plaintiffs waived the jury demand by failing to serve and file it within Rule 38's 14-day period, and the record showed no basis beyond inadvertence for relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims for benefits, interest, and damages under the APA, EEOICPA, the FTCA, federal-question jurisdiction, the Seventh Amendment, Article III, and federal criminal statutes.
2. Whether the amended complaint stated a claim under the FTCA.
3. Whether plaintiffs stated cognizable First and Fifth Amendment claims under Bivens.
4. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to leave to amend.
5. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to relief from their untimely jury demand.
6. Whether defendants were entitled to strike plaintiffs' untimely supplemental brief and notices.

Disposition

other