Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Favors-Morrell v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division

June 15, 2015



LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Angela Favors-Morrell's Motion to Change Venue (Dkt. no. 6) and Defendant United States of America's Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Dkt. no. 10). Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether the Department of Justice improperly declined to initiate a grand jury investigation at Plaintiff's bidding, the Court must GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and DENY AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue (Dkt. no. 6).


I. Allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that at her former job with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ("FLETC"), the management "violated criminal statutes provided in 5 U.S.C. § 8103, 18 U.S.C. § 1920, 18 U.S.C. § 1922, ... 20 C.F.R. [§] 10.15, [and] 20 C.F.R. [§] 10.204(b)."[1] Compl. at 3-4. Plaintiff alleges that she informed the Department of Justice about these violations, but that First Assistant United States Attorney James Durham denied her request for a grand jury investigation. Id. at 4. Attached to Plaintiff's Complaint is a letter from Mr. Durham denying Plaintiff's request for a grand jury investigation and stating: "If you believe there have been violations of federal criminal laws, I suggest that you contact a federal investigative agency, such as the FBI." Id. at 11. Plaintiff then filed the instant suit, seeking $442, 272 in compensation.

II. Additional Background,

For purposes of its motion to dismiss, Defendant has offered the following additional information.

Assistant United States Attorney T. Shane Mayes says that Plaintiff approached him outside of the Brunswick Courthouse sometime before November, 2013. Dkt. no. 10-1 (Mays Aff.) ¶ 3. Plaintiff told AUSA Mayes that she had filed claims against the United States and that she intended to follow up with the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding those claims. Id . On or about November 12, 2013, Plaintiff met with AUSA Mayes at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Savannah, Georgia, and requested that the United States Attorney initiate criminal proceedings related to the alleged improper handling of her prior claims against the government. Id . ¶ 4. Particularly, Plaintiff alleged that FLETC had mishandled her prior claims, and that United States District Court Judge Anthony Alaimo was biased against her when he previously presided over her prior civil actions concerning related events. Id . Later, AUSA Mayes told Plaintiff that no action by the U.S. Attorney's Office was warranted based on the information Plaintiff had provided. Id . ¶ 7. AUSA Mayes says this decision was an exercise of his own discretion as an AUSA and was made in consultation with other members of the U.S. Attorney's Office. Id . ¶ 9. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Durham agreed to send Plaintiff written confirmation of this decision. Id . ¶ 8.


Plaintiff filed her Complaint on October 31, 2014. Dkt. no. 1. She was later granted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. no. 5. On November 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Change Venue. Dkt. no. 6. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on December 22, 2014. Dkt. no. 10.

Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who may not be aware of the consequences of failing to respond to a motion to dismiss, the Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to file any objections to Defendant's motion or otherwise inform the court of her decision not to object. Dkt. no. 12. Plaintiff filed a response on December 24, 2014, which does not directly respond to Defendant's legal arguments but rather implores the Court to construe her complaint liberally, as she is proceeding pro se. Dkt. no. 13. Defendant replied, noting the response's deficiencies. Dkt. no. 15. Plaintiff has since filed several additional briefs of a similar nature to her initial response. See Dkt. no. 16 (purporting to bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1986 claim against the Defendant, and noting that Defendant had prosecuted other (unrelated) fraud cases involving false claims violations, workers compensation, and social security, as reported in the media); Dkt. no. 19 (stating the legal standard for Rule 12(b) (6) motions to dismiss and informing Defendant that she will be bringing a separate civil action); Dkt. no. 22 (alleging that "Defendant has violated 5 C.F.R. Part 2635(E) [guiding executive branch employees in maintaining impartiality when performing official duties] by adjudicating this claim"); Dkt. no. 26 (generally informing Defendant of the possibility of disbarment). Defendant's replies have reiterated the arguments in its Motion to Dismiss and first reply, and purport to show a pattern of "harassing" communications and "threats" from Plaintiff. See Dkt. nos. 21, 25.


Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is based on the theory that the Court does not have subject matter ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.