Sreedhar v. United States Government

Background

The court had dismissed Sreedhar’s original action on January 31, 2025, under sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity generally prevents federal courts from hearing suits against the federal government unless the government has waived that protection. The court gave Sreedhar limited permission to amend his pleading to assert a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and to state facts showing that he had met the FTCA’s procedural requirements.

Sreedhar filed an amended complaint on February 25, 2025. He did not assert an FTCA claim or state that he intended to pursue one in this action. Instead, he said he wanted to file documents in a closed criminal matter, United States v. Khobragade, No. 14-CR-00008 (JGK), and alleged that his former employer blocked his access to his home in Boston after sending him to Canada for a project. He asserted that the court had jurisdiction because his employer had assured the Canadian Consul General in New York that he would return to Boston.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying the filing fee if the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. It must also dismiss when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the dispute.

The court concluded that sovereign immunity barred the action. It noted that the FTCA waives sovereign immunity for certain claims seeking money damages based on tortious conduct by federal officers or employees acting within the scope of their employment. But the amended complaint did not indicate that Sreedhar intended to bring an FTCA claim; it instead sought to assert claims in a closed criminal case. The court therefore dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court also declined to give Sreedhar another opportunity to amend. It explained that a self-represented plaintiff is generally allowed to amend a complaint to fix defects, but another amendment may be denied when the plaintiff already had an opportunity to amend and did not correct the problems. The court found that the defects could not be cured through another amendment.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and enter judgment. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Sreedhar fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.