Dunn v. Patric A. Solimerc

Background

Michael Dunn alleged that he sent $5,200 in damaged currency to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) in July 2024. He said the BEP’s Mutilated Currency Division determined that about $2,700 was redeemable, although he believed the full $5,200 should have been paid. He also alleged that some $20 bills were missing and that the BEP had not paid him for another package of damaged $100 bills, identified as package number 2441068. Dunn requested redemption of the currency, responsibility for the allegedly stolen bills, and a court-ordered investigation of the Mutilated Currency Division’s security procedures.

Dunn named Patric A. Solimerc and Eric Walsh Jr. as defendants. Because the complaint did not describe specific actions by those individuals apart from their positions at the BEP, and because it was unclear whether they still worked there, the court interpreted the case as being against the BEP rather than against the individuals personally. The court said Dunn could clarify this interpretation in an amended complaint.

Possible claims and deficiencies

The court identified four possible theories: challenging the finding that only $2,700 of the first package was redeemable; challenging the delay in paying amounts allegedly owed for both packages; seeking compensation for the allegedly stolen $20 bills; and seeking an investigation of the BEP division’s security procedures. The complaint did not identify the federal laws supporting these theories.

The complaint referred to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court explained that, depending on the claim, the APA may allow a court to require an agency to take an action that was unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed, or to set aside certain unlawful agency actions. For a claim based on unreasonable delay, Dunn would need to allege that the agency had a nondiscretionary duty to act and unreasonably delayed a required, discrete action. The court held that the complaint did not identify clearly which agency action Dunn challenged or which statutory grounds supported the challenge. It therefore did not provide sufficient notice under Rule 8(a) and did not state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

The court also considered possible conversion claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the statute that waives the federal government’s immunity for certain tort claims. Before bringing such a claim in court, a claimant must first present it to the appropriate federal agency and receive a written final denial, or otherwise satisfy the statute’s presentation requirements. The court said Dunn’s letter did not state a specific payment request or a definite amount sought. Although Dunn said he submitted a government Form 95, the complaint did not state when he submitted it or what amount he requested. The court therefore found that the complaint did not clearly satisfy the FTCA’s claim-presentation requirement and that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over any FTCA tort claims.

The court also stated that Dunn had not cited legal authority supporting his request for an investigation of the BEP’s security procedures. If he intended to seek that investigation as relief, he would need to connect it to a federal cause of action.

Disposition

Applying the federal statute governing screening of complaints filed by people who have been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court ordered the complaint dismissed. The opinion did not state that the dismissal itself was with or without prejudice. The court ordered Dunn to file an amended complaint by September 8, 2026, stating the statutory and factual basis for each claim against the BEP and identifying specific conduct if he intended to sue individual BEP or Mutilated Currency Division employees. For any tort claim concerning theft of his property, he also had to allege facts satisfying the FTCA’s jurisdictional requirements. The court warned that failure to comply would result in the undersigned recommending dismissal of the case with prejudice.