Opinion ID: 182572
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Burden of Proof Irrelevant

Text: As a threshold matter, Hart argues the district court erred in sua sponte ruling on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Hart asserts the United States bears the burden to prove the discretionary function exception to the FTCA applies. Based upon that premise, Hart opines [t]he government was never forced to prove that the discretionary function exception applies so the District Court, in essence, shifted that burden to [Hart] who is now forced to prove that the exception does not apply. Hart concludes reversal is appropriate but cites no apposite legal authority for her conclusion. Assuming without deciding Hart is correct that the government bears the burden to prove the discretionary function exception to the FTCA applies, [3] the district court nonetheless did not err in sua sponte ruling on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. It is well established that a court has a special obligation to consider whether it has subject matter jurisdiction in every case. See Clark v. Baka, 593 F.3d 712, 714 (8th Cir.2010) (per curiam). This obligation includes the concomitant responsibility to consider sua sponte [the court's subject matter] jurisdiction . . . where . . . [the court] believe[s] that jurisdiction may be lacking. Id. As indicated, if the discretionary function exception applies, the United States has not waived sovereign immunity and there is no subject matter jurisdiction. See Green Acres, 418 F.3d at 857. Therefore, the district court did not err in sua sponte deciding whether the discretionary function exception applied in this case. See Clark, 593 F.3d at 714. Hart cites no legal authority for her argument that, merely by raising the discretionary function exception issue sua sponte, the district court somehow relieved the United States of its purported burden to prove the discretionary function exception applies. The district court's order is silent as to which party bore the burden. In any event, as indicated below, which party bore the burden is irrelevant here, because the material jurisdictional facts are undisputed and the discretionary function exception plainly applies. See St. Tammany Parish, 556 F.3d at 315-16 n. 3 (collecting cases in which circuit courts of appeals have avoided the issue of which party bears the burden to prove the discretionary function exception applies).