Source: https://www.povertylaw.org/clearinghouse/fpmd/chapter2/section5
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 03:55:53+00:00

Document:
Section 1331 is the principal basis of federal jurisdiction in litigation against the federal government and its agencies for injunctive relief. Under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, individual employees of the federal government are subject to suit for damages for acts in violation of plaintiffs’ federal constitutional rights.1 Jurisdiction over such actions is also provided by § 1331. In addition, Congress has enacted a variety of specific jurisdictional statutes governing particular kinds of litigation against the government based on the nature of the judicial proceeding or the subject matter of the controversy. These jurisdictional grants may also contain specific remedial provisions that establish conditions to suit or create immunities.
1. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971). Suits against federal employees in their individual capacities are not suits against the United States for purposes of venue or service of process.
2. Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben, 488 U.S. 105, 121 (1988) (quoting Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984)); see also Ingalls Shipbuilding Inc. v. Asbestos Health Claimants, 17 F.3d 130, 133 (5th Cir. 1994) (“Mandamus is only appropriate when the claim is clear and the duty of the officer is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt. Mandamus is thus not generally available to review discretionary acts of public officials.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
3. See Baptist Memorial Hospital v. Sebelius, 603 F.3d 57, 62 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Taylor v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 891, 894 (8th Cir. 2005); Lifestar Ambulance Service v. U.S., 365 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1050 (2005) (plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies). Mandamus has also been invoked successfully in efforts to overturn judicial rulings, see, e.g., Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-82 (2004) (ultimately successful effort to vacate discovery orders in Federal Advisory Committee Act case); to challenge a court’s decision to transfer the venue of a case, see, e.g., In re Chatman-Bey, 718 F.2d 484, 487–88 (D.C. Cir. 1983); and to compel performance of a prior court order, see, e.g., Kahmann v. Reno, 967 F. Supp. 731, 733–34 (N.D.N.Y. 1997).
4. See United States ex rel. Schonbrun v. Commanding Officer, 403 F.2d 371, 374 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 929 (1969).
5. 5 U.S.C. § 702; see Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 413 F.3d 1225, 1235-36 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting that district court had mandamus jurisdiction in prison conditions case and that mandamus and injunctive relief might be “interchangeable”).
6. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706. Other sections of the Administrative Procedure Act address agency procedure and the interaction of agencies and Congress. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq. A full discussion of the Act is found in Chapter 5.1.B of this Manual.
7. 5 U.S.C. § 702.
8. See Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105–07 (1977).
9. While jurisdiction is found in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , practitioners should also look to the agency’s organic statute or other provisions in the Judicial Code. For instance, some suits to review agency actions are committed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of appeals. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2341–2351.
10. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (the "Big Tucker Act").
11. Congress has the power to remove the Tucker Act as a jurisdictional basis for suit, but it must manifest that intent unambiguously. See Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1017 (1984); Slattery v. United States, 635 F.3d 1298, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc). However, when provisions in other statutes specify comprehensive remedial schemes, those statutes displace the Tucker Act and its waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v. Bormes, 133 S. Ct. 12, 18 (2012) (interpreting Fair Credit Reporting Act); United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 452–55 (1988) (finding Civil Service Reform Act implicitly withdraws certain actions by civil servants from reach of Tucker Act).
12. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (the "Little Tucker Act").
13. Jan's Helicopter Service v. FAA, 525 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
14. See Roedler v. Department of Energy, 255 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Smith v. Orr, 855 F.2d 1544, 1552–53 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
15. See Baker v. United States, 722 F.2d 517, 518 (9th Cir. 1983); Glaskin v. Klass, 996 F. Supp. 67, 73 (D. Mass. 1998).
16. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2), (b)(2) .
17. United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009); United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398-400 (defining "money-mandating" statutes). One exception is that the Little Tucker Act does not provide jurisdiction for claims arising under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2).
18. 28 U.S.C. § 2501; John R. Sand & Gravel Company v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008).
19. Brown v. United States, 631 F. Supp. 954, 957 (D.D.C. 1986); see Favereau v. United States, 44 F. Supp.2d 68, 71 (D. Me. 1999); see also Village of Oakwood v. State Bank & Trust Co., 539 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 2008) (district court jurisdiction available under FDIC's sue-and-be-sued clause).
20. Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 910 (1988) (state seeking monetary and equitable relief under Medicaid program). Significantly, in Bowen the Court held that not all actions that would result in the payment of money were necessarily actions for money damages: “The fact that a judicial remedy may require one party to pay money to another is not a sufficient reason to characterize the relief as ‘money damages’" Id. at 893.
21. Suburban Mortgage Associates v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 480 F.3d 1116, 1124-26 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Tootle v. Secretary of Navy, 446 F.3d 167, 169 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
22. Burkins v. United States, 112 F.3d 444, 449 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations omitted).
23. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2)–(3).
24. United States v. Hohri, 482 U.S. 64, 75-76 (1987).
25. Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).
26. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). The test for what is a “discretionary function” also has been much litigated, but the general formulation of the inquiry involves whether the action “involve[d] an element of judgment or choice” and whether the conduct was “based on considerations of public policy.” Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 536 (1988); see United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991). Federal employees are absolutely immune from tort liability if the attorney general certifies that the employee was acting within the scope of employment. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(d). If the certification is made, the United States is substituted as the defendant. Id.
27. See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 700 (2004).
28. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). For two recent Supreme Court cases dealing with this exemption, see Millbrook v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1441, 1446 (2013) (waiver of sovereign immunity extends to acts or omissions of law enforcement officers that arise within scope of their employment, regardless of whether they are "engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity, or are executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest"); Levin v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1224 (2013) (Gonzalez Act abrogates FTCA's intentional tort exception and permits suit against United States alleging medical battery).
29. Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 138 (1950).
30. Block v. Neal, 460 U.S. 289 (1983).
31. 28 U.S.C. § 2674; see also Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 305–06 (1992).
32. See Molzof, 502 U.S. at 306–07.
33. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) (statute of limitations); 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (requirement of administrative claim); United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 113 (1979).
34. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(b).
36. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). Both of these FTCA time limits are subject to equitable tolling. United States v. Wong, No. 13-1074 (U.S. April 22, 2015).

References: v. 
 § 1331
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 702
 v. 
 § 702
 v. 
 § 1331
 § 1491
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1346
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1491
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1346
 § 2501
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1295
 v. 
 § 1346
 § 2680
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2675
 v. 
 § 2680
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2674
 v. 
 § 2401
 § 2675
 v. 
 § 2675
 § 2401
 v.