Hutcheson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

JOSEPH B. HUTCHESON and ELLA

L. HUTCHESON,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 8:25-cv-185-JLB-NHA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN

AFFAIRS, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

On January 23, 2025, Plaintiffs Joseph B. Hutcheson and Ella L. Hutcheson,

proceeding pro se, brought this action against, among others, the U.S. Department

of Veteran Affairs (the “VA”). (Doc. 1). Upon review of the Complaint, it is difficult

for this Court to ascertain what claims Plaintiffs allege in this case. The gravamen

of Plaintiffs’ Complaint appears to be facts related to Mr. Hutcheson’s prior work at

the VA and incidents that allegedly arose during his tenure there. Construed

liberally and as best as this Court can tell, Plaintiffs bring claims against the VA,

various VA employees, and other entities alleging federal employment

discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, wrongful termination, false

imprisonment, and “IIED” (which the Court assumes to be a claim for intentional

infliction of emotional distress). (See Doc. 1 at 4, 7–17).

On September 8, 2025, the VA filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 14). Plaintiffs

filed a response on October 14, 2025, nearly 22 days late. (Doc. 27). Despite the

late response, the Court will exercise discretion and consider Plaintiffs’ response.

For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the VA’s motion to dismiss (Doc.

14) is due to be GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

Attacks on subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(1) are either facial or factual. Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1528–29

(11th Cir. 1990). Facial attacks “require[ ] the court merely to look and see if [the]

plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis of subject matter jurisdiction, and the

allegations in his complaint are taken as true for the purposes of the motion.” Id. at

1529 (quotation omitted). Factual attacks “challenge the existence of subject matter

jurisdiction in fact, irrespective of the pleadings, and matters outside the pleadings,

such as testimony and affidavits, are considered.” Id. (quotation omitted). “A

dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a judgment on the merits and

is entered without prejudice.” Stalley ex rel. U.S. v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys.,

Inc., 524 F.3d 1229, 1232 (11th Cir. 2008). A party must “exhaust all

administrative remedies before seeking redress in the federal courts.” Taylor v.

Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a complaint to be dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a motion to

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to

“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This plausibility

standard is met when the plaintiff pleads enough factual content “to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

When reviewing a motion to dismiss, courts must accept all factual

allegations in a complaint as true. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93–94 (2007).

Legal conclusions, however, “are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft,

556 U.S. at 679. “[C]onclusory allegations, unwarranted factual deductions or legal

conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Davila v. Delta Air

Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1185 (11th Cir. 2003).

The Court may consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss in ruling

on such motion without converting it into one for summary judgment. See Horsley

v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1134 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that the court may consider a

document attached to a motion to dismiss where the attached document is (1)

central to plaintiff’s claim and (2) undisputed). Likewise, the Court may take

judicial notice of public documents and rulings of other Courts when ruling on a

motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Beepot v. J.P. Morgan Chase Nat. Corp. Services, Inc.,

57 F. Supp. 3d 1358, 1366 (M.D. Fla. 2014). As such, the Court will consider the

Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint (Doc. 14-6), the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission’s ruling on such Complaint (Doc. 14-2), and the ruling of

the Merit Systems Protection Board (Doc. 14-5), which are attached to the VA’s

motion to dismiss and discussed below.

DISCUSSION

In its motion to dismiss, the VA argues that the purported employment

discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrongful termination

claims should be dismissed because Mr. Hutcheson has not exhausted his

administrative remedies. (Doc. 14 at 15–17). The Court agrees and dismisses

Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1) without prejudice.

The VA attached Mr. Hutcheson’s Equal Employment Opportunity

Complaint to its motion to dismiss, which was filed on August 18, 2023 (the “EEO

Complaint”). (Doc. 14-6). In the EEO Complaint, Mr. Hutcheson alleged claims of

harassment, hostile work environment, time and attendance issues, and assignment

of duties. (Id. at 1). On November 21, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“EEOC”) entered its Final Agency Decision finding that Mr.

Hutcheson “failed to establish that he was discriminated against or harassed as

alleged.” (Doc. 14-2 at 26). The EEOC instructed Mr. Hutcheson that he may file a

civil action (1) within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC’s decision if no appeal to the

EEOC-Office of Federal Operations (“EEOC-OFO”) has been filed, (2) within 90 days

after receipt of the EEOC-OFO’s final decision on appeal, or (3) after 180 days from

the date of filing an appeal with the EEOC-OFO if there has been no final decision

by the Commission. (Id. at 28). Mr. Hutcheson filed an appeal to the EEOC-OFO

on February 6, 2025. (Doc. 14-4).

As stated, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this case on January 23, 2025.

(Doc. 1). Since Mr. Hutcheson filed an appeal of the EEOC decision on February 6,

2025, he has not yet exhausted his administrative remedies. Therefore, the

employment discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims are

due to be DISMISSED.

Likewise, the Court finds that Mr. Hutcheson’s purported wrongful

termination claim is due to be dismissed for failure to exhaust his available

administrative remedies. On November 26, 2024, Mr. Hutcheson filed an appeal of

his termination from the VA with the Merit Systems Protection Board’s Atlanta

Regional Office (“MSPB”). (Doc. 14-5 at 1). The appeal was dismissed with

prejudice by Administrative Law Judge Jessica Velez Johnson. (Id. at 2, 8). Judge

Johnson’s decision was issued on May 9, 2025, and was due to take effect on June

13, 2025. (Id. at 1, 8). But Mr. Hutcheson appealed that decision on May 9, 2025,

before the final decision took effect (Doc. 14-3). Therefore, because Mr. Hutcheson’s

appeal of his termination is still pending, his administrative remedies are not yet

exhausted. His claim for wrongful termination is due to be DISMISSED.

Last, the Court will address Plaintiffs’ claims for false imprisonment and

intentional infliction of emotional distress. Based on review of the Complaint, the

Court finds that both claims arise under state law.1 The Eleventh Circuit “strongly

encourages or even requires dismissal of the state claims” when the federal claims

are dismissed. L.A. Draper & Son v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc., 735 F.2d 414, 428

1 Plaintiffs’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress arises under state rather

than federal law. See Conner v. Sticher, 801 F.2d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 1986) (collecting cases

and concluding that “a tort law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress does not

give rise to a constitutional deprivation claim). As to the false imprisonment claim, Plaintiffs

failed to cite to a federal statute or otherwise note why this claim is grounded in federal law.

(11th Cir. 1984) (citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)).

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The Court dismisses those

claims without prejudice, subject to any right Plaintiffs may have to file such claims

in the Florida state court. Stalley ex rel. U.S. v. Orlando Reg’ Healthcare Sys., Inc.,

524 F.3d 1229, 1232 (11th Cir. 2008) (“A dismissal for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction is not a judgment on the merits and is entered without prejudice.”).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the VA’s motion to dismiss (Doc. GRANTED. This case is

DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to deny any

pending motions as moot, terminate any deadlines, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on this 12th day of December 2025.

JOHN L. BADALAMENTI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE