Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND VIRGINIA L. NELSON * * v. * Civil No. JFM-00-613 * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. * ***** MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, a former employee of the United States Department of Defense, National Security Agency (NSA), has brought this action against the United States and several individuals. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. The motion will be granted in all respects. Plaintiff first went to work with NSA in 1988. In 1998 she became a voice language analyst. In March 1998 a theft of money was reported by an NSA employee. Plaintiff was interviewed by NSA security staff about the incident, and on June 11, 1998, she signed a sworn statement admitting that she took the money without the knowledge of colleague. On November 6, 1998 she again admitted removing the money from her colleagues work area but stated that it was done with the intention of repaying him. On June 22, 1998 plaintiff's access to "Sensitive Compartmented Information" was suspended. A decision to revoke her access to such information was made on February 8, 1999. Plaintiff was formally notified of the decision on February 19, 1999, and in accordance with NSA regulations, was notified of her opportunity to request a review of the decision. Plaintiff took that opportunity and on June 18, 1999 the decision to revoke her access to sensitive information was affirmed. Plaintiff was notified of her opportunity to have a final review of the decision by NSA's Access

Appeals Panel. Again, plaintiff availed herself of the review opportunity and was afforded an opportunity to present mitigating or refuting evidence. On December 20, 1999, the Appeals Panel sustained the earlier decision to revoke plaintiff's access to sensitive information. Plaintiff's employment with NSA terminated on January 3, 2000. Plaintiff's claims are unmeritorious for a variety of reasons. I will state them briefly. First, it is clear that this court has no authority to review the merits of an agency's security clearance decision. Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 158 (1987); Reinbold v. Evers, 187 F.3d 348, 357-58 (4th Cir. 1999). Second, plaintiff has asserted no cognizable procedural violation that implicating any constitutional rights. Third, plaintiff's Bivens claim based upon an alleged Miranda violation rests on the erroneous premise that Miranda rights exist in a non-criminal context. Moreover, a Bivens claim must be asserted against individuals, and plaintiff has made no allegations that the two individual defendants were involved in the alleged Miranda violations. Fourth, plaintiff's claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act must be dismissed because she has made no allegations that she has complied with the FTCA's exhaustion requirements. Moreover, she has not stated any cognizable claim under state law, just as she has stated no cognizable federal claim. Finally, plaintiff's claims under the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act are likewise barred because she has not exhausted her administrative remedies. Furthermore, to the extent that plaintiff challenges NSA's failure to expedite FOIA requests, that claim has been mooted since she has been provided with the information she requests. Although the information contained redactions, plaintiff has not challenged those redactions administratively.

A separate order granting defendants' motion to dismiss is being entered herewith.

Date: October 26, 2000

/s/ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND VIRGINIA L. NELSON * * v. * Civil No. JFM-00-613 * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. * ***** ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is, this 26th day of October 2000 ORDERED 1. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted; and 2. This action is dismissed.

/s/ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge



Download Virginia Nelson v United States.pdf

Maryland Law