Ramirez v. Sosa

Background

Jonathan Ramirez proceeded without a lawyer. In his original complaint, he asserted claims against Officer Sosa, whom the court understood to be either a federal security officer or a private security officer assigned to a Social Security office; the Social Security Administration (SSA); and the United States of America. Ramirez alleged that Sosa and other security officers assaulted him while he was visiting an unspecified Social Security office. The court understood the original complaint to seek damages.

In an order dated May 5, 2023, the court dismissed Ramirez’s claims against Sosa in his official capacity as a federal security officer and against the SSA based on sovereign immunity and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It dismissed defamation claims against the United States for the same reasons. The court allowed Ramirez to file an amended complaint addressing his remaining damages claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, including by alleging that he had exhausted the required administrative remedies before filing suit. The court also directed him to allege facts clearly showing whether Sosa and the other security officers were federal security officers or private security officers.

The court warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the allowed time, without showing good cause, could result in dismissal of the federal claims and the court’s declining to consider possible state-law claims.

Amended Complaint

Ramirez filed an amended complaint on June 27, 2023. He appeared to name the SSA, Sosa, the United States, and possibly other unidentified security officers. He alleged that on February 10, 2023, at a Social Security office at 820 Concourse Village West in the Bronx, New York, Sosa and other security officers attacked and beat him and barred him from the office. He asserted that the defendants violated his constitutional rights.

The amended complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. The requested relief included access to the SSA building, appointment as the next President of the United States, and cancellation of Sosa’s citizenship. The court did not address the requests for presidential appointment and cancellation of Sosa’s citizenship because it described those requests as frivolous.

Reasons for Dismissal

The amended complaint did not show that Ramirez had exhausted administrative remedies for his remaining damages claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. It also did not clearly establish whether Sosa and the other security officers were employed as federal security officers or as private security officers. The court therefore concluded that the amended complaint had the same deficiencies as the original complaint and dismissed the claims against the named defendants for the reasons stated in its May 5 order.

The court separately dismissed Ramirez’s new request for relief concerning “violations from the State.” Ramirez did not identify a state entity or officer or allege facts about violations by a state. The court treated those claims as improperly joined with the claims concerning a federal agency and dismissed them without prejudice to bringing them in a separate civil action against state defendants.

The court also dismissed the request to be allowed into the Social Security office. It explained that the Administrative Procedure Act allows limited judicial review of a final action by a federal agency but that Ramirez did not allege facts showing that he was challenging such a final agency action. The court dismissed those claims under sovereign immunity and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to bringing them in a separate action that alleges facts showing a challenge to a final agency action that caused him to be barred from the office.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. It dismissed federal-law claims against the United States, the SSA, Sosa, and any other individual defendants in their official capacities as federal officers under sovereign immunity and, consequently, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It dismissed federal-law claims against Sosa and any other individual defendants in their individual capacities for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. It declined to consider any state-law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.