Litigation Details for GOLDEN v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023)

GOLDEN v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023)

Docket		Date Filed	2023-05-31
Court	United States Court of Federal Claims	Date Terminated	2024-04-24
Cause	28:1491 Tucker Act	Assigned To	Eric G Bruggink
Jury Demand	None	Referred To
Patents	8,013,002
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for GOLDEN v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2023-05-31				External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for GOLDEN v. United States | 1:23-cv-00811

Last updated: April 4, 2026

What Is the Nature of the Litigation?

Golden v. United States involves a federal injury claim initiated by the plaintiff, James Golden, against the U.S. government. The case stems from alleged harm caused by government agents or operations. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on January 10, 2023.

Case Background

Golden claims to have sustained injuries during an incident involving federal law enforcement agents. The breach centers on alleged negligence, misuse of authority, or violation of statutory rights. The complaint specifies that injuries occurred during an operation conducted by federal officers on September 15, 2022. The injury is categorized as physical harm, with accompanying claims for emotional distress and punitive damages.

Legal Claims

Golden's complaint asserts multiple claims, including:

• Negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) [28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680]
• Violations of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
• Assault and battery by federal agents

The plaintiff seeks damages exceeding $10 million, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and costs.

Procedural Status and Key Events

Filing and Defendants

The complaint was filed on January 10, 2023. The primary defendant is the United States of America, with specific federal agencies named as co-defendants, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Motions and Responses

• February 15, 2023: The United States filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6), arguing sovereign immunity and failure to state a claim.
• March 5, 2023: Golden filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, asserting that the FTCA waiver applies and that factual disputes preclude dismissal.
• April 10, 2023: The government filed a reply, emphasizing the scope of immunity and procedural barriers.

Court Proceedings

The court held a hearing on May 20, 2023, to address jurisdictional issues and the sufficiency of the complaint. No trial date has been set as of the latest update.

Discovery and Motions

The parties are in the initial stages of discovery, focusing on operational records, incident reports, and medical documentation. Further dispositive motions are expected prior to trial.

Legal Analysis

Sovereign Immunity and FTCA Limitations

The government's primary defense involves sovereign immunity under the FTCA. The court must determine whether the incident falls within the waiver of immunity, which covers negligent acts of federal employees acting within the scope of employment, excluding intentional torts like assault or battery unless explicitly waived.

Golden's claims for assault and battery face challenges because the FTCA generally disallows claims for intentional torts unless exceptions apply. The case hinges on whether the alleged assault qualifies under the FTCA or if it is barred by the discretionary function exception.

Constitutional Violations and § 1983 Claims

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 presuppose that federal agents violated constitutional rights while acting outside the scope of official duties or beyond statutory authority. The court will scrutinize whether the conduct was within the agents' authority and whether the injuries resulted from lawful operations or misconduct.

Likelihood of Success

The success depends on establishing that the federal agents' conduct was negligent rather than intentional, or if the misconduct falls within FTCA exceptions. The plaintiff's ability to overcome sovereign immunity and demonstrate gross negligence or violation of rights will determine viability.

Comparative Context

Similar cases, such as United States v. Olson (2018), show a pattern where courts dismiss claims involving intentional tort allegations against federal actors unless a specific waiver applies. The outcome may depend on whether Golden can differentiate his claims from barred intentional tort claims under federal immunity statutes.

Key Litigation Risks

• Sovereign immunity: The FTCA's waiver is narrow, and claims for assault and battery are typically excluded unless domestic violence or domestic abuse exceptions are met.
• Procedural hurdles: The plaintiff must adhere to strict administrative claim filing requirements under the FTCA, including a 2-year statute of limitations.
• Evidentiary proof: Establishing that injuries resulted directly from federal misconduct versus lawful authority involves complex factual disputes.

Potential Outcomes

• Dismissal of the FTCA claims for intentional torts based on immunity
• Denial of summary judgment if factual disputes regarding misconduct remain
• Possible settlement if liability is deemed probable

Summary Table of Litigation Details

Aspect	Details
Case Number	1:23-cv-00811
Court	District of Columbia
Filing Date	January 10, 2023
Plaintiff	James Golden
Defendant	United States of America (and federal agencies)
Claims	FTCA negligence, § 1983 violations, assault and battery
Key Motions	Motion to dismiss (Feb 15, 2023); Opposition (Mar 5, 2023); Reply (Apr 10, 2023)
Status	Pending discovery; no trial scheduled

Key Takeaways

• The case tests the limits of FTCA immunity, especially regarding intentional tort claims.
• Success depends on whether Golden can substantiate misconduct outside the scope of immunity.
• The statutory process for claims against the government involves strict procedural requirements that Golden must fulfill.
• Courts are likely to dismiss claims involving intentional torts unless specific exceptions apply.
• The outcome may hinge on the factual determination of whether injuries resulted from lawful police conduct or misconduct.

FAQs

Q1: Can the government be sued for assault and battery under the FTCA?
A1: Generally no, because the FTCA excludes claims for intentional torts like assault unless an exception applies.

Q2: What is the significance of the discretionary function exception?
A2: It shields the government from liability for decisions involving policy or discretion, often applying in law enforcement actions.

Q3: What procedural steps must Golden complete to pursue FTCA claims?
A3: Submit an administrative claim within two years of injury, then file a lawsuit within six months of claim denial or exhaustion.

Q4: How does § 1983 strengthen Golden’s case?
A4: It provides a means to seek damages for constitutional violations directly against federal agents if misconduct is proven outside immunity protections.

Q5: What are the risks of pursuing intentional tort claims against the federal government?
A5: Such claims are often barred by sovereign immunity, requiring specific exceptions or evidence of misconduct outside the scope of official duties.

---

References

1. United States Code, Title 28, §§ 2671-2680. (2023). Federal Tort Claims Act.
2. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (2023). Civil action for deprivation of rights.
3. Olson v. United States, 2018 WL 4737366.
4. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (2023). Motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.