In the federal lawsuit filed by Sallamondra Robinson (on behalf of the estate of Shanquella Robinson), both the plaintiff’s response to the federal government’s motion to dismiss and the federal defendants’ reply were submitted as part of a consolidated filing.
Plaintiff’s Response (Filed March 28, 2025):
The plaintiff argues that the claims against the FBI and U.S. Department of State should not be dismissed and presents the following points:
Duty to Investigate:
The plaintiff contends that the FBI had a non-discretionary duty to investigate the death of an American citizen abroad, and that their failure to take proper action violated that duty.
Factual Allegations:
The plaintiff alleges the FBI and State Department failed to adequately communicate with the family, ignored key evidence (such as the viral assault video), and mishandled FOIA requests.
Jurisdiction and Private Analogue:
The plaintiff asserts that if the FBI and State Department were private persons, they would be liable under North Carolina tort law. The response insists that the lawsuit fits within the limited waiver of sovereign immunity under the FTCA.
Exhaustion Argument:
While the plaintiff admits she did not fully exhaust administrative remedies, she argues that requiring exhaustion in this case would be futile and overly burdensome.
Request for Discovery:
The plaintiff asks the court to allow jurisdictional discovery if the court finds any uncertainty about whether jurisdiction exists, and requests leave to amend the complaint if necessary.
Federal Defendants’ Reply (Filed March 31, 2025):
In response to the plaintiff’s arguments, the federal government maintains that all claims against the FBI and State Department should be dismissed in full, reiterating and reinforcing points from its original motion:
Lack of Jurisdiction:
The FBI’s actions are protected by the discretionary function exception.
There is no private party analogue under North Carolina law.
The plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies, which is a requirement under the FTCA.
The court lacks derivative jurisdiction to hear the FOIA-related claims.
Failure to Refute Key Grounds for Dismissal:
The government argues that the plaintiff failed to meaningfully respond to several dismissal grounds and that this should be treated as a concession.
Investigation Was Conducted:
The FBI states that it did investigate and decided not to prosecute, this decision, they argue, is discretionary and cannot be challenged under the FTCA.
Amendment and Discovery Futile:
The government opposes any discovery or amendment of the complaint, saying that the legal deficiencies cannot be cured and additional fact-finding is unnecessary.
Conclusion:
The plaintiff is asking the court to keep the federal claims alive or allow further proceedings (like discovery or amendment). The federal government is asking the court to dismiss all claims against it, stating there is no jurisdiction and the plaintiff failed to meet legal requirements under the FTCA.
https://icanticant.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/quella-updates-331-1.pdf