Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01407/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01407-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMAR EVANS,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATIONS,

 Defendant.

1:05-cv-01407 OWW DLB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK

OF SUBJECT-MATTER

JURISDICTION

(F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)) 

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigations moves to

dismiss Plaintiff Jamar Evans’ complaint for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. Plaintiff opposes the motion. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Plaintiff filed the complaint in Fresno County Superior

Court on July 15, 2005. Defendant removed the case to federal

court on November 8, 2005. Doc. 1, Notice of Removal. Defendant

filed the motion to dismiss on November 16, 2005. Doc. 4, Mot.

to Dismiss. Oral argument was heard on January 9, 2006. 

III. BACKGROUND

The complaint is a Judicial Council of California stateCase 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 01/17/06 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

court form complaint for a contract claim. Doc. 1, Notice of

Removal, Exh. A. The form provides checking boxes for

characterizing the claim. Plaintiff checked the “breach of

contract” box. Id., 2. Plaintiff also checked the box

indicating that his claim exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars. 

Id., 1. 

Plaintiff describes his cause of action as follows:

On or about 01/24/2005, [P]laintiff contacted the

Federal Bureau of Investigations. He contacted the

(FBI) as an informant. Plaintiff as informant was

ridiculed and denied access to the services the federal

agency (FBI) provides. 

The [P]laintiff complains that by denying his claim of

civil rights violations; the FBI has breached a duty to

[P]laintiff. The [P]laintiff further complains that

the named federal agency has caused the [P]laintiff

added emotional distress. 

Id., 3. 

The claim is unintelligible and does not appear to be

legally cognizable. Because Plaintiff is pro se, an explanation

of the complaint’s deficiencies is provided. 

IV. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

governs dismissal of a suit for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction. “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction

in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” 

A-Z Int’l v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003). 

“When subject-matter jurisdiction is challenged under Federal

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Rule of [Civil] Procedure 12(b)(1), the plaintiff has the burden

of proving jurisdiction in order to survive the motion.” Tosco

Corp. v. Communities for a Better Environment, 236 F.3d 495, 499

(9th Cir. 2001).

A challenge to jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) “can be

either facial, confining the inquiry to allegations in the

complaint, or factual, permitting the court to look beyond the

complaint.” Savage v. Glendale Union High School, 343 F.3d 1036,

1039-40 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). In a factual Rule 12(b)(1)

challenge, “the district court is not restricted to the face of

the pleadings, but may review any evidence, such as affidavits

and testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the

existence of jurisdiction.” McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d

558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Safe Air for Everyone v.

Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[i]n resolving a

factual attack on jurisdiction, the district court may review

evidence beyond the complaint without converting the motion to

dismiss into a motion for summary judgment”). 

Once the moving party has converted the motion to dismiss

into a factual motion by presenting affidavits or other evidence

properly brought before the court, the party opposing the motion

must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy

its burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. Savage,

343 F.3d 1039-40 n.2. 

V. ANALYSIS

Defendant argues that if Plaintiff’s claim sounds in tort,

the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over it because

Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 01/17/06 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

before filing suit. Defendant argues in the alternative that if

Plaintiff’s claim sounds in contract, the court lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction over it because the Tucker Act vests

jurisdiction over contract claims brought against the United

States for sums in excess of ten thousand dollars exclusively in

the court of federal claims.

1. The Federal Tort Claims Act

Plaintiff alleges that, when he attempted to provide the FBI

with information as an informant, he was “ridiculed and denied

access to [FBI] services[.]” Doc. 1, Notice of Removal, Exh. A,

3. As a result, Plaintiff claims that the FBI “breached a duty

to [him] . . . [and] the named federal agency has caused [him]

added emotional distress.” Id. These allegations state a claim

for a common-law tort. 

“The FTCA [Federal Tort Claims Act] is the exclusive remedy

for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows

claims against the United States. Although such claims can arise

from the acts or omissions of United States agencies, an agency

itself cannot be sued under the FTCA.” F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157

F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Defendant argues that by failing to file an administrative

tort claim before filing suit, Plaintiff failed to meet a strict

jurisdictional requirement under the FTCA, and his suit must be

dismissed. 

The FTCA provides in relevant part: 

An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against

the United States for money damages for injury or loss

of property or personal injury or death caused by the

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 01/17/06 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee

of the Government while acting within the scope of his

office or employment, unless the claimant shall have

first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal

agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by

the agency in writing and sent by certified or

registered mail.

28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). 

As used in this chapter and sections 1346(b) and

2401(b) of this title, the term "Federal agency"

includes the executive departments, the judicial and

legislative branches, the military departments,

independent establishments of the United States, and

corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or

agencies of the United States, but does not include any

contractor with the United States.

"Employee of the government" includes . . . officers or

employees of any federal agency[.]

28 U.S.C. § 2671. 

Defendant is a “federal agency,” as defined by Title 28,

Section 2671, of the United States Code. In Goodman v. United

States, 298 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (9th Cir. 2002), it was held:

In a claim for damages against the United States, an

independent cause of action must first be submitted for

administrative review before that claim can be filed in

federal court. Where such a claim is not first

presented to the appropriate agency, the district

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 01/17/06 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(1), must dismiss the action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.

Goodman, 298 F.3d at 1054-55 (citations omitted); see also

Cadwalder v. United States, 45 F.3d 297, 300 (9th Cir.1995)

(administrative-claim requirement jurisdictional); Jerves v.

United States, 966 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir.1992) (FTCA’s waiver of

sovereign immunity must be construed strictly in favor of the

United States). 

Defendant asserts that a search of its Central Records

System failed to find any evidence that Plaintiff had filed an

administrative claim. Doc. 4, Mot. to Dismiss, Att. 2 (Decl. of

William Hooton, ¶¶ 2-4.). At oral argument, Plaintiff claimed,

without supporting evidence, that he had complied with the FTCA’s

administrative-claim requirement. 

2. The Tucker Act

Although Plaintiff filed the complaint using a state-court

form complaint for a contract claim, Plaintiff does not allege a

contract that was breached. Doc. 1, Notice of Removal, Exh. A. 

Defendant argues in the alternative that if Plaintiff’s claim

nonetheless sounds in contract, the court lacks subject-matter

jurisdiction over it because the Tucker Act vests jurisdiction

over contract claims brought against the United States for sums

in excess of ten thousand dollars exclusively in the court of

federal claims.

The Tucker Act provides in relevant part:

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have

jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 01/17/06 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

the United States founded . . . upon any express or

implied contract with the United States[.]

28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). 

The Tucker Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Court

of Federal Claims for contract claims against the government

exceeding $10,000. M-S-R Public Power Agency v. Bonneville Power

Admin., 297 F.3d 833, 840 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 

VI. CONCLUSION

It is unclear whether Plaintiff can state any cognizable

claim for relief. He must allege compliance with the

administrative-claim requirement and a breach of an enforceable

legal duty to state a tort claim under the FTCA. Any “contract”

claim appears to be in excess of the jurisdiction of the court. 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, with leave to

amend. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 15 days

following service of this order. 

SO ORDERED

DATED: January 17___, 2006.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

____________________________

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 01/17/06 Page 7 of 7