From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stebbins v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dec 13, 2012
Civil Action No. 12 2029 (D.D.C. Dec. 13, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12 2029

12-13-2012

David Stebbins, Plaintiff, v. United States, Defendant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's complaint and the accompanying application to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal of an action "at any time" the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).

Plaintiff is suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-80, "for the value of [the] cases" in which the U.S. Court of Federal Claims allegedly failed to docket his notices of appeal. Compl. at 1. The United States has consented to be sued under the FTCA "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." Id., § 1346(b)(1). The FTCA does not apply to the instant complaint arising out of the decisions of a federal court. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

______________

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Stebbins v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dec 13, 2012
Civil Action No. 12 2029 (D.D.C. Dec. 13, 2012)
Case details for

Stebbins v. United States

Case Details

Full title:David Stebbins, Plaintiff, v. United States, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date published: Dec 13, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 12 2029 (D.D.C. Dec. 13, 2012)

Citing Cases

Hackworth v. Kan. City Veterans Admin. Med. Ctr.

However, not all courts liberally construe pro se complaints to find waivers of sovereign immunity not…