Adele Jeter v. the President of the United St
670 F. App'x 493
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Adele T. Jeter (pro se) sued for copyright infringement, tort, and unjust enrichment, naming federal employees and the United States as defendants.
- District court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; Jeter appealed.
- Copyright claims were asserted against the United States and employees alleged to be acting for the United States.
- District court found Jeter had not exhausted FTCA administrative remedies for her tort/damages claims and noted FTCA does not permit equitable relief.
- The district court substituted the United States as defendant, denied default judgment, stayed discovery pending resolution of jurisdictional issues, dismissed without leave to amend as futile, denied IFP because filing fee had been paid, and declined to recuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction over copyright claims | Jeter asserted copyright infringement against named individuals and the government | Claims against the U.S. or employees acting within scope fall within the Court of Federal Claims’ exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) | Court: Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; exclusive jurisdiction in Court of Federal Claims |
| FTCA exhaustion and availability of equitable relief | Jeter sought tort and unjust enrichment remedies in district court | Defendants: Jeter failed to administratively exhaust FTCA claims; FTCA is exclusive remedy and does not provide equitable relief | Court: Dismiss tort/unjust enrichment claims for lack of jurisdiction; FTCA exhaustion required; no equitable relief under FTCA |
| Substitution of United States as defendant | Jeter opposed substitution | Defendants certified employee conduct occurred within scope of employment so United States must be substituted | Court: Proper substitution of United States under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1) |
| Default judgment, discovery stay, leave to amend, IFP, recusal | Jeter sought default, opposed discovery stay, requested leave to amend, IFP, and recusal | Defendants argued lack of jurisdiction, discovery stay pending jurisdictional resolution, dismissal without leave because amendment would be futile; IFP unnecessary because fee paid; no recusal basis | Court: Denied default judgment; discovery stay appropriate; dismissal without leave proper as futile; IFP denied (fee paid); no recusal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Rattlesnake Coal. v. U.S. EPA, 509 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir.) (standard of review: de novo)
- FDIC v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697 (9th Cir. 1998) (FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States)
- Goodman v. United States, 298 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court must dismiss FTCA damages claims not administratively exhausted)
- Westbay Steel, Inc. v. United States, 970 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1992) (courts lack jurisdiction under FTCA to award equitable relief against the federal government)
- Axess Int’l, Ltd. v. Intercargo Ins. Co., 183 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 1999) (court without jurisdiction lacks power to adjudicate related matters such as default judgment)
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (district court may dismiss without leave where amendment would be futile)
- Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1988) (staying discovery pending resolution of immunity/jurisdictional issues is not an abuse of discretion)
- Noli v. C.I.R., 860 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir. 1988) (party bears greater burden on appeal to show recusal error if no motion was made below)