Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01407/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01407-1/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’ amended complaint for lack of

subject-matter 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 a motion to dismiss on November 16, 2005. Doc. 4, Mot. to

Dismiss. Oral argument was heard on January 9, 2006. Defendant’s

motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend on January 17,

2006. Doc. 9, Order. 

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 10
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

Plaintiff filed the amended complaint on January 17, 2006. 

Doc. 10, Am. Compl. Defendant moved to dismiss on January 30,

2006. Doc. 11, Mot. to Dismiss. Plaintiff responded to the

motion on February 3, 2006. Doc. 13, Resp. in Opp. Defendant

replied to Plaintiff’s response on February 16, 2006. Doc. 15,

Reply. 

III. BACKGROUND

The background relevant to the complaint is set forth in the

order of January 17, 2006. Doc. 9, Order, 1-2. 

Plaintiff describes his cause of action in the amended

complaint as follows: 

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

Federal Bureau of Investigations. He had contacted the

(FBI) as a prospective informant. Plaintiff as

informant was thereafter ridiculed and ultimately

denied access to the services of the federal agency

(FBI).

The [P]laintiff complains that by denying his

administrative claim of cited civil rights violations,

the FBI has negligently breached a duty to [P]laintiff,

has fostered an environment where the [P]laintiff is

further injured, and more than likely to be subjected

to further civil harassments as a result of his failed

administrative claim with said agency.

By reason of the [D]efendant’s negligence in setting

aside and thus denying [P]laintiff’s administrative

claim, the “Federal Agency” has caused the [P]laintiff

additional and severe emotional distress. 

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 10
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

 Although the amended complaint is labelled a “Complaint 1

for Negligence Under Federal Employer’s Liability Act,” Doc. 10,

Am. Compl., 1, it does not mention the FELA. 

3

Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendant in the amount of

“$372.1 Trillion Dollars, and cost.” Doc. 10, Am. Compl., 5. 

Plaintiff states three grounds for subject-matter

jurisdiction. First, Plaintiff claims that Title 28, Section

1332, of the United States Code grants the court diversity

jurisdiction, based on the fact that Plaintiff is a citizen of

California and Defendant is a federal agency. Second, Plaintiff

alleges that the court has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28

U.S.C. §§ 1346(a)(2), 1491, which governs contract actions

against the United States. Third, Plaintiff alleges that his

suit arises under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C.

§§ 2675, et seq. Doc. 10, Am. Compl., 2. 

1

Defendant does not address the first two alleged grounds of

subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s

cause of action sounds only in tort, that the FTCA alone provides 

Plaintiff with a potential remedy, and that Plaintiff has not

satisfied the FTCA’s administrative pre-requisite to filing a

tort claim in federal court. In particular, Defendant alleges

that Plaintiff failed to demand a sum certain from the FBI in his

prior communications with the agency, and thus failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies, a jurisdictional requirement. Doc.

11, Mot. to Dismiss, 8.

IV. LEGAL STANDARD

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

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 03/09/06 Page 3 of 10
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

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 (9 Cir. 2003). th

“When subject-matter jurisdiction is challenged under Federal

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

(9 Cir. 2001). th

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 (9 Cir. 2003). In a factual Rule 12(b)(1) th

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

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

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,

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 03/09/06 Page 4 of 10
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

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

V. ANALYSIS

1. The Tucker Act

Plaintiff’s original complaint did not allege a contract

that was breached. Neither does his amended complaint. Even

assuming a valid claim for breach of contract, however, the

Tucker Act vests exclusive jurisdiction over contract claims

brought against the United States for sums in excess of ten

thousand dollars in the court of federal claims. See Doc. 9,

Order, 6-7. 

The Tucker Act provides in relevant part:

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have

jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against

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 (9 Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). th

Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of ten thousand dollars. The

court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s contract claim. 

2. Diversity Jurisdiction

Title 28, Section 1332, of the United States Code, grants

the court subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of

citizenship. It provides in relevant part:

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of

all civil actions where the matter in controversy

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 03/09/06 Page 5 of 10
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

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of

interest and costs, and is between (1) citizens of

different states; (2) citizens of a State and citizens

or subjects of a foreign state; (3) citizens of

different States and in which citizens or subjects of a

foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign

state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as

plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different

States.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

While the Plaintiff’s claim satisfies the minimum-amount-incontroversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, Defendant, an

agency of the United States, is not a citizen of a state or of a

foreign state. See Texas v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n and

Railroad Labor Bd., 258 U.S. 158, 160 (1922); Hancock Financial

Corp. v. Federal Savings and Loan Ins. Corp., 492 F.2d 1325, 1329

(9 Cir. 1974); General Ry. Signal Co. v. Corcoran, 921 F.2d th

700, 703 (7 Cir. 1991). The court does not have diversity th

jurisdiction. 

3. The Federal Tort Claims Act

Plaintiff alleges that “the FBI has negligently breached a

duty to [P]laintiff,” resulting in Plaintiff’s “severe emotional

distress.” Doc. 10, Am. Compl., 5. These allegations attempt to

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

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 03/09/06 Page 6 of 10
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

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

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

The complaint was dismissed on the grounds that Plaintiff

failed to allege that his claim had been submitted to and

rejected by the FBI administratively, a jurisdictional

requirement under the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); Doc. 9,

Order, 7. The amended complaint alleges compliance with this

requirement. See Doc. 10, Am. Compl., 3 (“[p]rior to the

commencement of the 7/15/2005 civil action, ... [P]laintiff

presented an administrative claim to the [FBI]”). 

Plaintiff alleges violations of his civil rights by various

parties. See Doc. 10, Am. Compl., Complaint Letter with Jurat,

3-4. Plaintiff alleges that he first brought these allegations

to Defendant’s attention in late January 2005 in person at

Defendant’s Fresno Office, and requested then that they be

investigated. See Doc. 10, Am. Compl., 5. This is insufficient

to constitute an administrative claim filed with the agency. 

Upon Defendant’s refusal, Plaintiff wrote letters, first to the

Fresno Office supervisor, then to personnel at various levels of

the agency, including FBI Director Robert Mueller. Each of these

written requests also was refused, on the grounds that the acts

alleged did not constitute prosecutable violations. This

correspondence is attached to the amended complaint. 

Plaintiff did not demand a definite sum of damages from

Defendant for its refusal to investigate his allegations. For

example, in his letter to Director Mueller, Plaintiff wrote that

he, 

respectfully submits this information to you and your

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 03/09/06 Page 7 of 10
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

8

office with the desire to find legal resolution. [T]his

is [Plaintiff’s] last communication with [Defendant]

before he seeks legal damages within the U.S. Courts

for the violations of his civil rights by the Fresno,

CA Branch Office[.] Although the matter initially

complained of is being altogether ignored by

[Defendant], [Plaintiff] . . . requests that this

matter be fully resolved at its lowest levels before

the courts are introduced to clear the subject. 

Doc. 10, Am. Compl., 4/28/05 Letter from Plaintiff to Robert

Mueller.

A demand for a sum certain is a necessary component of a

FTCA administrative claim. “The provision of [28 U.S.C.]

§ 2675(b) that requires that an action cannot be instituted for

any sum in excess of the amount of the claim presented makes it

apparent that the claim must state a sum certain.” Blair v.

I.R.S., 304 F.3d 861, 865 (9 Cir. 2002). This is a th

jurisdictional requirement. Id.

The sum-certain requirement is not a trap for the

unwary. Rather, this requirement allows an agency to

assess a claim's settlement value. Since the FTCA

links both the authority to settle a claim and the

source of settlement funds to the amount of the

underlying claim, the Act's purpose is frustrated if

the administrative claim does not indicate a specific

amount of money. For example, claims of $2,500 or less

can be settled on the authority of “[t]he head of each

Federal agency or his designee” and are paid “out of

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 03/09/06 Page 8 of 10
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

9

appropriations available to that agency.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2672 (1994). Claims of between $2,500 and $25,000

can be settled on the same authority, but are paid out

of a separate appropriation. See id. Finally, claims

in excess of $25,000 can only be settled “with the

prior written approval of the Attorney General or his

designee.” Id.

Kokotis v. United States Postal Service, 223 F.3d 275, 279 (4th

Cir. 2000). 

Plaintiff does not, and on these facts cannot, allege that

he has satisfied the FTCA’s administrative exhaustion prerequisite to district-court subject-matter jurisdiction. The

court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim.

Dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate where a

complaint cannot be saved by further amendment. Oki

Semiconductor Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 298 F.3d 768, 772

(9 Cir. 2002). th

VI. CONCLUSION

The court has previously provided Plaintiff with notice and

explanation of the deficiencies in his original complaint. His

amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies. Simply stated,

no person can require a federal law-enforcement agency to utilize

that person as an informant. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is

GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the alleged tort claim. The

court is without jurisdiction to hear the contract claim, which

at the request of Plaintiff is transferred to the Court of

Federal Claims. 

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 03/09/06 Page 9 of 10
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

10

SO ORDERED

DATED: March _9__, 2006.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

____________________________

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-01407-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 03/09/06 Page 10 of 10