Manchanda v. Reardon

OPINION AND ORDER On December 22, 2023, the Court sua sponte dismissed any claims by Plaintiff Rahul Manchanda that seek to initiate a criminal prosecution and against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) or the United States other than under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b), 1402(b), 2401(b), 2671-80, ordered Plaintiff to show cause why any claims under the FTCA should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust, and further provided him with notice of the Court’s intent to dismiss any remaining federal claims, to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, and to deny leave to amend. See Manchanda v. Reardon (“Manchanda I”), No. 23 Civ. 9292 (JPC), 2023 WL 8879226 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2023). Plaintiff responded on December 23, 2023 by, among other things, attaching exhibits which he maintained demonstrate his compliance with the FTCA’s administrative exhaustion requirement. After reviewing those materials, the Court advised Plaintiff on January 2, 2024 that it appeared that he lacks a viable cause of action against the United States — both for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies and for failing to state a claim — and provided notice of its intent to dismiss any FTCA claims. See Manchanda v. Reardon (“Manchanda II”), No. 23 Civ. 9292 (JPC), 2024 WL 259776 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2024). Plaintiff responded later that day, defending his claims in this action and requesting the undersigned’s recusal, and again on January 3, 2024, providing more materials trying to show his exhaustion under the FTCA. Having considered the allegations in the Amended Complaint and all of Plaintiff’s submissions following the Court’s Orders of December 22, 2023 and January 2, 2024, the Court denies Plaintiff’s recusal application, dismisses his federal claims, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, and denies him leave to amend on futility grounds. I. Procedural History A. The Amended Complaint In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings nine causes of action under federal and state law: (1) violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983 for deprivation of rights under color of law, Dkt. 15 (“Am. Compl.”)

21-22; (2) violations of 42 U.S.C. §2000ee-1(e) for retaliation, id.