2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-5-2009 

# Ik elion wu v . Na sh P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4396

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ike l ion wu v . Nash" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1398. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1398CL D- 1 4 3 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 4396

___________ M I CH AE L I KE L I ONWU, A ppel l ant

v. WARDE N J OHN NA S H; UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

__________________________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 00625) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R ober tB . K ugl er

__________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 M ar ch 26, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: M ay5, 2009)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM M i chae l I kel i onw u, a pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, fi l ed a c om pl ai ntunderthe F e d e ra l T o rt C laim s A c t (“ F T C A ” ) se e k in g d a m a g e s f o r p e rso n a l p ro p e rtya lleg e d ly2

m i s pl ace d byB ur eau of Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) offi ci al s . I kel i onw u appea l s fr om the D i s t r i ct C o u rt o rd e r d ism iss in g h is c o m p lain t f o r la c k o f

su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to R u le 1 2 (b )(1 ) o f

th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re . W e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . B e c a u se th e a p p e a l d o e s n o t p re se n t a s u b sta n tial q u e stio n , w e w ill s um m ar i l yaff

i r m . See 3d C i r . L A R 27. 4; 3d C i r . I O P 10. 6. I I n Fe brua r y20 05 , I ke l i on w u f i l e d a n a dmi ni s t r a t i ve t ortc l a i m w i t h the BO P, s eeki ng damages i n t he amountof $20, 000, 000 forthe l os s of hi s per s onal pr oper t yand leg a l d o c u m e n ts, w h ich w e re a lleg e d lym isp lac e d d u rin g h is tra n sf e r f ro m F .C .I. F o rt D ix t o F. C . I . A l l enw ood. T he B O P offer ed I kel i onw u $150 t o s ett l e the cl ai m , w hi ch he rejected . Ike li o n w u then fil ed a F T C A claim ag ains t Joh n N ash , the w ard en at F . C . I. F o rt D i x, i n fede r al di s t r i ctcourtand s ubs equent l yamended hi s compl ai ntt o i ncl ude the U n ited S tate s a s a d e f

e n d a n t. In M arch 20 08 , D efen dan t -A pp el l ee N ash fi l ed a R ule 12(b)( 1) m oti on t o d i sm i ss, a l l e gi ng t ha tt he Sup r e me Court ’ s r e c e ntde c i s i on i n Al i v. Fe d. Bur e a u o f P r i s on s , 12 8 S. C t . 831 ( 2008) , depr i ved the D i s t r i ctC our tof j ur i s di ct i on overthe ca s e. T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt a g re e d a n d d ism iss e d th e c o m p lain t. Ik e lio n w u f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. II The D i s t r i c tCour tdi s mi s s e d I ke l i on w u’ s c ompl a i ntpu r s ua ntt o Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 1) , r eas oni ng t hatt he doctr i ne of s over ei gn i m m uni t ybar s I kel i onw u’ s cl ai m under3

the FT C A . T he FT C A pr ovi des “a l i m i t ed w ai verof s over ei gn i m m uni t y , m aki ng the Feder al G overnm entl i abl e t o t he s ame ext entas a pr i vat e part yforcert ai n t or t s of fe der al empl oy ees act i ng w i t hi n t he s cope of thei rempl oym ent . ” U ni t ed St at es v. O r l eans , 425 U . S . 8 0 7 , 8 1 3 (19 7 6 ). T h is w aive r i n clud es “ claim s . . . fo r m o n eyd am ag es . . . fo r i n jury orl os s of pr opert y. . . caus ed byt he negl i gentorw r ongful actorom i s s i on of” a governm entempl oy ee. 28 U . S. C . § 1346( b) ( 1) . H ow ever , an exc ept i on t o t he w ai verof i m m uni tyappl i es t o cl ai m s agai ns t“l aw enfor cementoffi cer s ” ar i s i ng fr om the “de t ent i on o f a n yg o o d s, m e rc h a n d ise , o r o th e r p ro p e rty .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 6 8 0 (c ). B O P o f f icia ls acc us ed of mi s pl aci ng pr i s onerpr oper t yfal l w i t hi n t he ambi tof § 2680( c) . See A l i , 128 S. C t . at835. A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded thati tl acks s ubj ect m a t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n b a s e d o n t h e d o c t r i n e o f s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y. I kel i onw u ar gues t hats over ei gn i m m uni t yi s w ai ved i n hi s cas e bec aus e 1) the B O P se t t l ementoffe ri nform ed hi m thathe coul d i ns t i tut e a s ui tagai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es i f he d i d n ot acceptt he set t l em ent; and 2) D efen dan t -A pp el l ee N ash adm i t t ed in hi s fi rs t m oti on t o d i sm i ss that I keli on w u’s s uitw as properl yfi l ed u nd er the F T C A . B ecause

“ n e i th e rc o u r t s n o rg o v e r n m e n to f f i c i a l s c a n e f

f e c tu a t e ” a w a i v e ro f

s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i ty, G o v e rn o r o f

K a n sa s v . K e m p th o rn e , 5 1 6 F .3 d 8 3 3 , 8 4 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ), w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t Ik e lio n w u ’s a rg u m e n ts la c k m e rit. A c c o rd in g ly , w e su m m a rily a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.