J-S36003-16

J-S36004-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

TIM E. HOLZ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

G. REESE, LT. SCALPONE, 

DAVID J. EBBERT, J.L. NORWOOD, 

D. COOMBE, T. DEDRICK

Appellees No. 2000 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered September 17, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County

Civil Division at No(s): 15-538

TIM E. HOLZ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

J.L. NORWOOD, D.J. EBBERT, 

SUSAN HEATH, D. WILSON, T. BUTLER, 

SUE STOVER, MR. HENDRICKSON, 

R. BINGAMAN AND D. LANGTON

Appellees No. 2225 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered November 4, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County

Civil Division at No(s): 15-607

BEFORE: MUNDY, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED MAY 18, 2016

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S36003-16

J-S36004-16

- 2 -

Appellant, Tim E. Holz, appeals1 pro se from the September 17 and 

November 4, 2015 orders, sua sponte dismissing his complaints with 

prejudice filed against Appellees, various federal prison officials, for want of 

subject matter jurisdiction.2 After careful review, we affirm.

We summarize the brief procedural history of these cases as follows. 

On September 12, 2015, Appellant, a prisoner at the federal prison in 

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed a complaint at docket number 15-538, 

alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights as well as “the 

Pa[.] Tort Statute’s [sic] for intentional [t]ort.” Appellant’s Complaint, 

9/12/15, at 4-5. On September 17, 2015, the trial court sua sponte

dismissed Appellant’s entire complaint for want of subject matter 

jurisdiction. On October 8, 2015, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

On October 6, 2015, Appellant filed another complaint at docket 

number 15-607, accusing federal officials of using undercover agents to 

abuse, assault, stab, and conspire to murder him. Appellant’s Complaint, 

10/6/15, at 3, 13-14. On November 4, 2015, the trial court sua sponte

dismissed Appellant’s entire complaint for want of subject matter 

____________________________________________

1 This Court hereby consolidates these two appeals sua sponte. See 

Pa.R.A.P. 513 (stating, “[w]here there is more than one appeal from the 

same order, or where the same question is involved in two or more appeals 

in different cases, the appellate court may, in its discretion, order them to be 

argued together in all particulars as if but a single appeal[]”).

2 None of the Appellees have filed a brief in this matter.
J-S36003-16

J-S36004-16

- 3 -

jurisdiction. On November 24, 2015, Appellant filed a timely notice of 

appeal.3

In his briefs, Appellant raises the following issues for our review.

(1) Does the [trial court] have sovereign/supreme 

jurisdiction over a federal prison pursuant to ... 

Appellant ... asserting jurisdiction in a 

complaint/lawsuit against [f]ederal [p]rison 

staff/officials pursuant [to] the United States 

Constitution, and the Pennsylvania Tort 

Statutes?

Appellant’s Brief, 2000 MDA 2015, at 5.

(1) [D]oes the [trial] court have subject matter 

jurisdiction of this complaint against [f]ederal 

prison staff asserting the [Pennsylvania] Tort 

Statute’s [sic] and U.S. Constitution as primary 

authorities/jurisdiction?

(2) Is the complaint a summary pursuant to 

[Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure] 

1019([a])?

(3) Should this action have been dismissed with 

prejudice? 

Appellant’s Brief, 2225 MDA 2015, at 5 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Essentially, Appellant challenges the trial court’s conclusions that it 

____________________________________________

3 Appellant filed concise statements of errors complained of on appeal 

pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) as part of his 

notices of appeal, although the trial court did not direct him to do so. The 

trial court has filed Rule 1925(a) opinions for both appeals.
J-S36003-16

J-S36004-16

- 4 -

lacked subject matter jurisdiction over both complaints.4 The trial court 

concluded that only the federal courts had subject matter jurisdiction. Trial 

Court Opinion, 2000 MDA 2015, 11/5/15, at 2; Trial Court Opinion, 2225 

MDA 2015, 11/5/15, at 2.

“Subject matter jurisdiction relates to the competency of a court to 

hear and decide the type of controversy presented.” Silver v. Pinskey, 981 

A.2d 284, 292 (Pa. Super. 2009). Such issues present pure questions of 

law, for which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is 

plenary. Id. (citation omitted). Furthermore, “the parties or the court sua 

sponte can raise a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction at any time.” Id.

(citation omitted).

In Appellant’s complaint at docket number 15-538, Appellant alleged 

that he has been forced to live with a cellmate who, in Appellant’s words, is 

“a stone cold homosexual[.]” Appellant’s Complaint, 9/12/15, at 2. In 

addition, Appellant alleges that prison officials prevented him from eating 

____________________________________________

4 We note that Appellant’s briefs are woefully lacking in development. 

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(a) requires that “[t]he 

argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be 

argued ... followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are 

deemed pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Appellant’s arguments on appeal 

are vague and do not contain citations to any relevant legal sources in 

support thereof. Therefore, we could find his arguments waived on this 

basis. See generally In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa. 

Super. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), appeal 

denied, 69 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013). However, as we are not ultimately 

hampered in our ability to resolve Appellant’s appeals, we decline to find 

waiver in this instance.
J-S36003-16

J-S36004-16

- 5 -

due to Appellant and another inmate allegedly fighting. Id. at 4. Appellant 

summarizes his complaint at docket number 15-607 as accusing federal 

officials of using undercover agents to abuse, assault, stab, and conspire to 

murder him while in the custody of the United States. Appellant’s Brief, 

2225 MDA 2015, at 6; Appellant’s Complaint, 10/6/15, at 3. This complaint 

refers to the alleged course of conduct as “intentional tort violations” and 

“manifesting extreme indifference for the value of human life.” Appellant’s 

Complaint, 10/6/15, at 3, 13. In addition, the trial court noted that the 

complaint at 15-607 alleged “tortious conduct by various federal 

employees[.]” Trial Court Opinion, 2225 MDA 2015, 11/5/15, at 2. Both 

complaints also alleged that the defendants violated “Pennsylvania Tort 

Statutes.” Appellant’s Complaint, 9/12/15, at 5; Appellant’s Complaint, 

10/6/15, at 13. Appellant repeats these references in his briefs on appeal. 

Appellant’s Brief, 2000 MDA 2015, at 5; Appellant’s Brief, 2225 MDA 2015, 

at 5.

Given these allegations, we conclude that Appellant is bringing tort 

claims against various federal officers, acting in their capacity as agents of 

the federal government.5 Therefore, we conclude that, in spite of 

____________________________________________

5 The trial court suggests that Appellant’s complaint at docket number 15-

538 “speak[s] to” a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics 

Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), in which the Court permitted a cause of 

action against federal actors for certain violations of federal constitutional 

rights. Trial Court Opinion, 11/5/15, 2000 MDA 2015, at 2; Bivens, supra

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S36003-16

J-S36004-16

- 6 -

Appellant’s labeling, his complaints actually sound in the Federal Tort Claims 

Act (FTCA). The FTCA permits a cause of action for “claim for money 

damages against the United States for injury or loss of property or personal 

injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any 

employee of the agency while acting within the scope of his office or 

employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private 

person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the 

place where the act or omission occurred[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2672. 

Because Appellant’s complaints state claims under the FTCA, we 

further conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over 

the same. Congress has explicitly restricted FTCA claims to the jurisdiction 

of the federal courts.

§ 1346. United States as defendant

...

(b)(1) Subject to the provisions of [the FTCA], the 

district courts, together with the United States 

District Court for the District of the Canal Zone and 

the District Court of the Virgin Islands, shall have 

exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims 

against the United States, for money damages, 

accruing on and after January 1, 1945, for injury or 

loss of property, or personal injury or death caused 

by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any 

employee of the Government while acting within the 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

at 392. To the extent Appellant’s complaints can be read as attempting to

raise a Bivens claim, he must do so in federal court. See generally 28 

U.S.C. § 1331; Trial Court Opinion, 11/5/15, 2000 MDA 2015, at 2.
J-S36003-16

J-S36004-16

- 7 -

scope of his office or employment, under 

circumstances where the United States, if a private 

person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance 

with the law of the place where the act or omission 

occurred.

...

28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (emphases added).6 Therefore, because Congress 

has divested it of subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court correctly 

dismissed Appellant’s complaints for want of the same. Such complaints 

must be brought in federal court.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court properly 

dismissed Appellant’s complaints, as subject matter jurisdiction lies 

exclusively with the federal courts. See Silver, supra. Accordingly, the 

trial court’s September 17, 2015 and November 4, 2015 orders are affirmed.

Orders affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/18/2016

____________________________________________

6 Although 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) exempts certain claims for assault, battery 

and other torts from the reach of the FTCA, Section 2680(h) explicitly states 

that Section 1346(b) applies to such claims against “investigative or law 

enforcement officers of the United States Government[.]” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2680(h).