A recent ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has led to the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Paul Guertin, a former State Department Foreign Service Officer. Guertin’s suit, filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleged various wrongdoings by Special Agent Robin Leipfert of the Department of State’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and her supervisors. Guertin claimed these actions caused him reputational harm, emotional distress, and the loss of his career.
The court, in a memorandum opinion issued on November 28, 2025, sided with the United States of America, the defendant in the case, and granted its motion to dismiss Guertin’s amended complaint. The court’s decision was based on several key legal principles and a careful examination of the facts presented.
Background of the Case
Paul Guertin began his diplomatic career in 2007, serving as a Foreign Service Officer for over a decade. During his tenure, he held various assignments both domestically and abroad, including positions in China and Pakistan. He resigned from the State Department in August 2017.
As a condition of his employment, Guertin held a Top Secret security clearance, which required him to complete background investigation questionnaires (SF-86) on multiple occasions. These forms require applicants to disclose detailed background information.
In 2016, the OIG initiated an investigation into Guertin based on a tip from the FBI alleging his involvement in overseas transactions related to online gambling and non-gambling sports competitions. Agent Leipfert was assigned to the case in February 2016.
Guertin’s Amended Complaint outlined several key events:
* Search Warrants: Agent Leipfert obtained search warrants for Guertin’s email accounts, alleging that the affidavits supporting these warrants contained false statements and omissions.
* Grand Jury Testimony: Guertin alleged that Agent Leipfert provided misleading and perjured testimony to the grand jury, which led to his indictment on charges of wire fraud and obstruction of an official proceeding.
* Criminal Proceedings: Guertin was indicted in March 2021. However, the indictment was later dismissed by the court. The dismissal was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2023.
Guertin then filed an administrative claim with the State Department seeking damages for lost income, benefits, and emotional distress. This claim remains unresolved.
In January 2024, Guertin filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, which was subsequently transferred to the District of Columbia. The Amended Complaint, filed in August 2024, asserted five claims: malicious prosecution, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision.
The Court’s Reasoning
The court’s decision to dismiss Guertin’s complaint rested on two primary grounds: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Jurisdictional Issues
The court first addressed whether it had the authority to hear the case, specifically concerning Counts II, IV, and V, which involved invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision. The defendant argued that these claims were barred by the “misrepresentation exception” to the FTCA.
The FTCA is a federal law that allows individuals to sue the United States for certain torts committed by federal employees. However, it contains several exceptions, including one for claims “arising out of misrepresentation.” The court agreed with the defendant, finding that Guertin’s claims were essentially based on allegations of false statements made by Agent Leipfert. The court determined that these claims fell under the FTCA’s “libel and slander” exception, which bars claims based on the dissemination of defamatory information. Therefore, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over these counts.
Failure to State a Claim
The court then examined the remaining claims, malicious prosecution and abuse of process (Counts I and III), to determine if Guertin had presented enough facts to support his allegations.
Malicious Prosecution
To establish a claim for malicious prosecution under District of Columbia law, a plaintiff must prove four elements:
1. The defendant initiated or procured a criminal proceeding against the plaintiff.
2. The absence of probable cause for the proceeding.
3. Malicious intent on the part of the defendant.
4. Termination of the proceeding in favor of the plaintiff.
The court focused on the second element – absence of probable cause. The court found that a prior judicial determination of probable cause for the issuance of search warrants, made in a related criminal case, barred Guertin from relitigating this issue. The court noted that the judge in the prior case had found probable cause even after excluding the disputed facts upon which Guertin based his current malicious prosecution claim. Therefore, the court found that Guertin could not successfully plead the absence of probable cause, a crucial element of his malicious prosecution claim.
Abuse of Process
The court also dismissed Guertin’s claim of abuse of process. To prove abuse of process, a plaintiff must show an ulterior motive and that the judicial process was perverted to achieve an end not contemplated by its regular use.
The court found that Guertin’s allegations were insufficient to establish abuse of process. The court concluded that Guertin had not plausibly pleaded that Agent Leipfert’s conduct was based on any motive other than the performance of her duties. The court also held that, even if the allegations were true, they did not describe a perversion of the judicial process.
The court emphasized that the legal process was used for its intended purpose: to determine whether Guertin was guilty of a criminal offense. The court also noted that the absence of probable cause does not automatically establish abuse of process.
Conclusion
In its ruling, the court systematically addressed each of Guertin’s claims, ultimately concluding that they were either barred by jurisdictional limitations or failed to meet the legal requirements for stating a valid claim. As a result, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety.