Warner v. Dr. Karen M. Ashby

Background

Samuel Joseph Warner, a veteran and patient at the St. Cloud VA Medical Center, filed a petition for a harassment restraining order ("HRO") in Minnesota state court against Dr. Karen M. Ashby, his psychologist at the St. Cloud VA. Warner alleged that Dr. Ashby sexually assaulted him at the VA in 2016 and made unwanted sexual advances toward him, that he reported the assault but nothing was done, and that beginning in 2024 Dr. Ashby began harassing him through mail and phone calls. He further alleged that Dr. Ashby improperly accessed his VA medical records, filed disruptive behavior reports against him, and altered his medical records in retaliation for his rejecting her advances — all to the detriment of his mental health, his ability to work, and his ability to receive medical care at the VA.

Warner sought an order requiring Dr. Ashby to have no contact with him "in any way" and to prevent her from "using her position at the VA to continue harassing or retaliating against" him. Dr. Ashby removed the case to federal court, asserting federal-officer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which allows federal officers to remove state cases to federal court when the claim arises from actions taken under color of their federal office. The federal government also filed a certification under 38 U.S.C. § 7316 and 28 U.S.C. § 2679, stating that Dr. Ashby was acting within the scope of her VA employment at the time of the incidents underlying Warner's allegations. Warner did not file a response to Dr. Ashby's motion to dismiss. Warner proceeded without an attorney (pro se).

Legal Standard

Dr. Ashby moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction — meaning the court lacks the legal authority to hear the case at all. Dr. Ashby raised a "facial" challenge, meaning she relied only on the face of the pleadings rather than introducing outside evidence. On a facial challenge, the court accepts the non-moving party's well-pleaded factual allegations as true and gives the pro se petitioner the benefit of a liberal reading of his filings.

Sovereign Immunity Analysis

Sovereign immunity is the legal doctrine that the United States government cannot be sued without its consent. This immunity extends to federal employees when the United States is the "real party in interest" — that is, when a judgment against the employee would effectively operate against the government, such as by restraining the government's ability to act or compelling it to act in a certain way.

The court found that the HRO Warner sought would directly restrict Dr. Ashby's activities at her federal job — specifically, how she performs her role as a VA psychologist. Because the requested injunction would impair the duties of a federal employee acting in the scope of her federal employment, the court concluded that the lawsuit was "in substance and effect" one against the United States itself without its consent. The court cited a substantial body of case law from other federal districts holding that sovereign immunity bars requests for restraining orders against federal employees when those orders would restrict the employees' conduct within the workplace or in the performance of their official duties.

The court placed the burden on Warner to demonstrate both a waiver of sovereign immunity and a grant of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because Warner did not respond to the motion and his petition contained no plausible basis for such a waiver, the court found he did not meet that burden.

The court added an important limitation: its ruling applies only to Dr. Ashby's alleged conduct within her role as a VA psychologist. The court expressly stated that the sovereign immunity analysis would not apply to any conduct Dr. Ashby may have taken "outside the workplace" while not "on duty." However, the court found no non-conclusory allegations in Warner's petition suggesting that any of the alleged wrongful conduct occurred outside Dr. Ashby's official VA role.

Disposition

Judge Provinzino granted Dr. Ashby's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11). The Petition for Harassment Restraining Order (ECF No. 1-1) was dismissed without prejudice. Because the court resolved the case on the sovereign-immunity jurisdictional ground, it did not address Dr. Ashby's alternative argument that the petition failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.