Opinion

Ho v. Department of Labor

Court
District Court, M.D. Florida
Filed
Nov 2, 2021
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.8%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

DANNY HO,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 8:21-cv-2038-WFJ-AAS

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Administrative Review Board and

JAMES D. MCGINLEY, Chief

Administrative Law Judge,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s amended motion for a Clerk’s default (Dkt.

11). The motion is denied for the following reasons.

The rambling, incoherent complaint appears to take issue with a discovery

ruling made by the federal administrative law judge (ALJ), which resulted in the

sanction of dismissal in January 2020. Dkt. 1-1 at 195–202. An ALJ may not be

sued for acts or omissions occurring in connection with duties performed on the

United States’ behalf. Smith v. Shook, 237 F.3d 1322, 1325 (11th Cir. 2001). The

ALJ enjoys absolute immunity from suit so long as he or she did not act in the

clear absence of jurisdiction. The ALJ clearly possessed jurisdiction in the

pending matter before the Department of Labor. The case against the ALJ is

therefore dismissed.

Plaintiff appealed that decision (of January 2020) to the agency’s

administrative review board. The June 30, 2021 order, which is attached to the

complaint, affirms the sanction of dismissal of his “AIR21” case under 49 U.S.C. §

42121. Dkt. 1-1 at 250–255. Plaintiff may be attempting to seek judicial review of

the decision of the Administrative Review Board issued June 30, 2021, although it

is unclear from the complaint. Section 42121(b) (2)(B)(i) provides that a

complaint shall be dismissed if the complainant fails to make the required showing

to conduct investigation. In Plaintiff’s case, discovery had begun, but the ALJ

dismissed the complaint as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with

discovery. Section 42121(b)(4)(A) provides that a final order issued after a

hearing may be reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals. Any person

aggrieved by an order issued pursuant to the procedures in § 42121(b), may obtain

review of the order in the United States court of appeals. 49 U.S.C. § 20109(d)(4).

Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 11) is denied. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed

without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint setting forth exactly

what he is seeking in this United States District Court. Any amended complaint

must be filed on or before November 17, 2021, failing which this case will be

dismissed without further notice.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on November 2, 2021.

WILLIAM F.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.