Case ID: f-appx_376/html/0760-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary A. JASSO; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Illa L. Garcia; et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, United States Department of Agriculture; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-17582.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 19, 2010.
    Mary A. Jasso, Likely, CA, pro se. Gilbert Tiffee, Likely, CA, pro se. Dorothy M. Tiffee, Likely, CA, pro se. Kurtis A. Ainslie, Sitka, AK, pro se.
    Illa L. Garcia, Bieber, CA, pro se.
    Teresa Huddleston-Garcia, Bieber, CA, pro se.
    John Adam Bain, Senior Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Todd A. Pickles, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs Mary A. Jasso and members of her family appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA’s discretionary function exception. Terbush v. United States, 516 F.3d 1125, 1128 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because the United States — the only proper party — met the requirements of the discretionary function exception. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1) (providing that, upon certification that employees were acting within scope of their U.S. government employment, the action shall be deemed an action against the United States which shall be substituted as the defendant); Terbush, 516 F.3d at 1129 (recognizing discretionary function exception applies if (a) the government’s conduct was discretionary, with no federal statute, regulation, or policy prescribing a specific course of action, and (b) the action or decision involves considerations of public policy); In re Consol. U.S. Atmospheric Testing Litig., 820 F.2d 982, 993-999 (9th Cir.1987) (holding discretionary function exception applied to claims against United States for radiation exposure from nuclear weapons testing).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions, including those regarding constitutional violations whether framed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.