Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01282/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01282-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALAN W. WOLCOTT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv1282-GPC-BLM

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

[DKT. NO. 18]

vs.

ROBERT MEULLER; ERIC

HOLDER; KEITH SLOTTER; THE

FEDERAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION; THE U.S.

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE;

DOES 1 thru 500,

Defendants.

On May 25, 2012, Plaintiff Alan W. Wolcott (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint and

on September 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 16.) 

On November 19, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim. (Dkt. No. 18.) For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion

and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claim. 

BACKGROUND

In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff claims that he provided a

tip to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) in response to a request made by

- 1 - 12cv1282-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-01282-GPC-BLM Document 21 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 5
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

Defendant Keith Slotter. According to Plaintiff, Mr. Slotter, special agent for the

1

FBI and host of the television program “The FBI’s Most Wanted”, “emanated to the

general public agreement announcing orally ‘the FBI needs your help.’” Plaintiff 2

alleges that he responded to the Mr. Slotter’s public offer via telephone, and left

several messages asking Mr. Slotter to return Plaintff’s telephone call. Plaintiff

asserts that he tried to gather information regarding the James Whitney Bulger case. 

Because Plaintiff “has not been allowed to confer” with Mr. Slotter regarding the

information, Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: mistake, fraud, and bad faith. 

Plaintiff requests compensatory damages in the amount of $2 million, plus

$360,897.15 in interest. Plaintiff further prays for injunctive relief as the case is

pending. 

LEGAL DISCUSSION 

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal,129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547). 

A claim is facially plausible when the factual allegations permit “the court to draw

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 

In other words, “the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences

from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to

relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a

context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. To determine the

adequacy of a complaint, conclusory allegations are disregarded, and a court is to

ask whether well-pled factual allegations plausibly suggest that Plaintiff is entitled

Unless otherwise indicated, all background is taken from Plaintiff’s second amended

1

complaint.

Defendants clarify that the only similar show in San Diego, California is San Diego’s Most 2

Wanted,” which has been hosted by Mr. Slotter. (Dkt. No. 18 at 2.)

- 2 - 12cv1282-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-01282-GPC-BLM Document 21 Filed 02/25/13 Page 2 of 5
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

to relieve. Id. 

Plaintiff’s first cause of action is barred under the Contract Disputes Act and

Little Tucker Act. Plaintiff labels his first claim as a “mistake”, which appears to be

a claim for breach of contract. Plaintiff describes the “mistake” as “knowingly and

willingly paying the reward to the wrong person.” (Complaint at 3.) Plaintiff’s

complaint describes Defendant Slotter’s announcement as a contract when he states

it is a “general public agreement.” Plaintiff appears to allege that the FBI broke this

agreement by failing to respond to his phone call, and by allegedly paying the

reward to the wrong person. Plaintiff asserts that he suffered over $2 million in

damages as a result of this breach of contract. In their motion to dismiss,

Defendants rightly assert that all contract disputes against the United States over the

amount of $10,000 are required to be brought in the Court of Federal Claims. 28

U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). The Contract Disputes Act, in conjunction with the Tucker

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) and the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2),

grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to adjudicate the contract claims

Plaintiff may have against the United States. The Tucker Act provides jurisdiction

in the Court of Federal Claims for claims against the United States “founded either

upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive

department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States.” 28

U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The Little Tucker Act, as amended by the Contrac t Disputes 

Act, gives district courts concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Federal Claims

for:

Any other civil action or claim against the United

States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded

either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or

any regulation of an executive department, or upon any

express or implied contract with the United States, or

for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not

sounding in tort, except that the district courts shall not

have jurisdiction of any civil action or claim against the

United States founded upon any express or implied

contract with the United States or for liquidated or

unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort

which are subject to sections 8(g)(1) and 10(a)(1) of

- 3 - 12cv1282-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-01282-GPC-BLM Document 21 Filed 02/25/13 Page 3 of 5
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

the Contract Disputes Act of 1978.

28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2).

The Little Tucker Act does not give district courts jurisdiction for contract

claims exceeding $10,000, and does not give district courts jurisdiction for claims

covered by sections 8(g)(1) and 10(a)(1) of the Contract Disputes Act. Id. The

district court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the Little

Tucker Act because (1) his claims of damages due to the alleged breach of contract

are over $2 million - far exceeding the $10,000 limit; and 2) his claims arise, if at all,

under section 10(a)(1) of the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 609(a)(1). For

these reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s first cause of action. 

Plaintiff’s second cause of action also fails because claims against the United

States for fraud by a federal officer are absolutely barred. Claims arising out of

misrepresentation or deceit are excluded from the Federal Tort Claims Act. See 28

U.S.C. § 2680 (h)(listing as a specific exemptions that the United States cannot be

sued for, including “misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.”

); Moon v. Takiski, 501 F.2d 389, 390 (9 Cir. 1974). Here, Plaintiff states that th

“fraud is defined and describes the mistake in the form of subrogation of the Plaintiff

with the person who received the reward money.” (Complaint at 3.) The Court

interprets this claim as an alleged interference by a FBI officer in Plaintiff’s

contractual right to the reward money. As previously stated, the Federal Tort Claims

act bars such claims against the U.S. government for interference in contract rights. 

As such, Plaintiff’s cause of action for fraud fails. To the extent that Plaintiff has

named individuals under the Federal Tort Claims Act claim for fraud, the Court

further finds that the only proper defendant in such action is the U.S. government. 

Allen v. Veterans Administration, 749 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9 Cir. 1984). Accordingly,

th

the Court finds that Plaintiff has improperly named individuals in this claim and

therefore dismisses all named Defendants except the U.S. government.

Plaintiff’s third and final cause of action for bad faith fails to state a claim. To

- 4 - 12cv1282-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-01282-GPC-BLM Document 21 Filed 02/25/13 Page 4 of 5
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

determine the adequacy of a complaint, conclusory allegations are disregarded, and a

court is to ask whether well-pled factual allegations plausibly suggest that Plaintiff is

entitled to relieve. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. Plaintiff’s claim states that bad faith is

“the rude behavior in the form of Duty Agent repeatedly hanging up the phone when

Plaintiff tried to gather information on the James Whitey Bulger case.” (Complaint at

3.) This claim is neither well-pled or plausible. To withstand a motion to dismiss, a

complaint “must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely

creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.’” Armstrong v. Sexson,

2007 WL 2288297 (E.D. Cal. August 8, 2007), quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 55. 

Rather, a complaint must “plausibly” show a valid claim. Id. at 557. The Court

finds scant supporting facts or evidence on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint to

support a claim for bad faith. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claim for bad

faith.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DISMISSES WITH

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action. The Court DISMISSES

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s third cause of action. Furthermore, the Court

hereby VACATES the hearing date set for March 1, 2013. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 5 - 12cv1282-GPC-BLM

Case 3:12-cv-01282-GPC-BLM Document 21 Filed 02/25/13 Page 5 of 5