Court Opinion

ID: 9410918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 13:11:01.266028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:01.317086
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
UNPUBLISHED

              Present: Judges Huff, Lorish and Senior Judge Petty

              WALTER DELANEY BOOKER, JR.
                                                                                MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.     Record No. 1202-22-1                                           PER CURIAM
                                                                                    JULY 25, 2023
              COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
               DARA WATSON (WARDEN) AND
               BASHARES (FOOD OP. DIR.)

                               FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE
                                            Robert G. MacDonald, Judge

                              (Walter Delaney Booker, Jr., on brief), pro se.

                              No brief for appellees.

                     Appellant, Walter Delaney Booker, Jr., pro se, challenges the dismissal of his complaint

              under the Virginia Tort Claims Act, Code §§ 8.01-195.1 to -195.9, for lack of subject-matter

              jurisdiction. After examining the brief and record in this case, the panel unanimously holds that

              oral argument is unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit.” Code

              § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a). Finding no error, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

                                                        BACKGROUND

                     While incarcerated in the St. Brides Correctional Center, appellant filed a pro se

              complaint in the Chesapeake City Circuit Court (the “circuit court”) under the Virginia Tort

              Claims Act against the Commonwealth, Warden Dara Watson, and Food Operations Director

              Bashares (“appellees”). See Code §§ 8.01-195.1 to -195.9. The complaint concerned an alleged

              incident on August 7, 2019. Appellant simultaneously filed two additional pro se Virginia Tort

                     *
                         This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
Claims Act complaints. The first of those additional complaints alleged that the Commonwealth,

Watson, and four other employees prevented him from participating in communal religious

activities on June 4, 2019, and August 13, 2019. The final complaint alleged that the

Commonwealth, Watson, and two other employees had not compensated appellant properly for

work on June 17, 2019, and March 23, 2020.

       The sole complaint at issue in this appeal alleged that appellant was improperly charged

on August 7, 2019, for a meal tray and that his money had not been refunded even after an

investigation found that he should not have been charged. Appellant sought judgment against

the Commonwealth of $.70 with 10% interest, compounded daily, plus $1,000, and additionally

sought judgment of $1,000 against Watson and Bashares.

       Appellees moved the circuit court to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction. Appellees argued that because appellant claimed only $2,000, Code § 8.01-195.4

reserved exclusive jurisdiction to the general district court. Appellant opposed the motion to

dismiss and argued that the circuit court had jurisdiction because the amount sought in his three

complaints combined exceeded $4,500.

       After considering appellees’ motion to dismiss and appellant’s opposition, the circuit

court found that appellant sought $2,000.70, plus interest, and therefore ruled it did not have

subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was less than the statutory

threshold for it to acquire jurisdiction. Accordingly, the circuit court dismissed appellant’s

complaint without prejudice. Appellant appeals.

                                            ANALYSIS

       Appellant argues that because he filed his three complaints “together,” the circuit court

should have considered the combined amount sought therein to determine whether his “claims”

                                                -2-
exceeded $4,500.1 Whether a circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law we

review de novo. Knight v. Ottrix, 69 Va. App. 519, 523 (2018). Further, this Court “always has

jurisdiction to determine” whether it possesses subject-matter jurisdiction. Pure Presbyterian

Church of Wash. v. Grace of God Presbyterian Church, 296 Va. 42, 50 (2018) (quoting Morrison v.

Bestler, 239 Va. 166, 170 (1990)).

       The Virginia Tort Claims Act provides in relevant part:

               The general district courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
               . . . on any claim against the Commonwealth . . . under this article
               when the amount of the claim does not exceed $4,500, exclusive of
               interest and any attorney fees. . . .

Code § 8.01-195.4. As the circuit court found, appellant’s complaint concerning the events of

August 7, 2019, sought judgment of less than $4,500. Therefore, under Code § 8.01-195.4,

appellant’s complaint fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the general district court, and the

circuit court correctly ruled that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

       Because the circuit court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over appellant’s

complaint, it properly dismissed the complaint. Indeed, the circuit court had no other

permissible choice. Once a court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, “the only

function remaining . . . is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Ruderman v.

Pritchard, 76 Va. App. 295, 302 (2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Pure Presbyterian

Church of Wash., 296 Va. at 50). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment dismissing

appellant’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

       1
          Appellant also contends that instead of dismissing his complaint, the circuit court
should have ordered separate trials, transferred his complaint to the general district court, or
allowed him to increase the amount of his claim. Given our conclusion that the circuit court
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over appellant’s complaint, we do not address these arguments.
See Ritchie v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 328, 334 (2022) (“[T]he doctrine of judicial restraint
dictates that we decide cases ‘on the best and narrowest grounds available.’” (quoting
Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 419 (2017))).
                                                 -3-
                                 CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                                                       Affirmed.

                                       -4-