United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Jackson Division
DANIEL P. JORDAN, III, District Judge.
This pro se case is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and/or Failure to State a Claim , and Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and/or Summary Judgment . Upon considering the parties' submissions and applicable authority, the Court finds Plaintiff's motion should be denied, and Defendants' motion should be granted.
Plaintiff Luther Williams, Jr., represents himself in this case against the United States. Because he proceeds pro se, the Court liberally construes his pleadings. And in that light, Williams appears to claim that the Department of Veterans Affairs failed to inform him that his now former spouse had various health and other insurance-related benefits. He asserts that had he known, he would have avoided certain damages, including the foreclosure of his home in 1998. Pl.'s Am. Compl.  at 2. Williams claims to have discovered the benefits in 2010; he submitted an SF-95 on January 28, 2013.
After denial of his claim, Williams filed suit against the United States of America and Mr. Sloan Gibson, Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The Government moved to dismiss , and Williams filed a motion for default and/or summary judgment  which also constituted his response. The Government filed a joint reply/response , and the Court is now prepared to rule.
As a threshold issue, the Court must determine the proper scope of review. The Government premises its motion under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) must be decided with reference solely to the complaint and certain documents "referenced in the complaint, " Malone Gaming Management, L.L.C. v. St. Tammany Parish, 456 F.Appx. 336, 340 (5th Cir. 2011), a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be decided based on "the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts in the record, " Huff v. Neal, 555 F.Appx. 289, 295 (5th Cir. 2014).
The issue is further clouded by the basis of the Government's Rule 12(b)(1) motion-Williams's alleged failure to file his complaint within the statute of limitations. Recent cases from the Fifth Circuit hold that the statute of limitations under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is jurisdictional, but some earlier cases say it is not. Compare In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prods. Liab. Litig., 646 F.3d 185, 190 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that FTCA statute of limitations is jurisdictional), with Perez v. United States, 167 F.3d 913, 915-17 (5th Cir. 1999) (taking contrary view).
Ultimately, the Court concludes that it can review the record evidence for two reasons. First, as stated, the current trend in this circuit is to treat the matter as jurisdictional. See, e.g., Farmer v. United States, 539 F.Appx. 584, 585 (5th Cir. 2013). Regardless, Rule 12(d) gives the Court discretion to convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. In this case, both parties presented record evidence that would normally fall beyond the scope of Rule 12(b)(6). And Williams has expressly moved for summary judgment on the claims. The Court elects to consider the evidence under Rule 56.
Pursuant to Rule 56(a), summary judgment is warranted when evidence reveals no genuine dispute regarding any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The rule "mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
A. Government's Motion
The Government asserts four primary arguments for dismissal: (1) the claims were brought beyond the applicable statute of limitations and therefore jurisdiction is lacking; (2) Williams has not pleaded a breach of duty; (3) federal district courts lack jurisdiction over benefit determinations; and (4) res judicata. Because this case was filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations, the Court will focus on that issue. That said, ...