Bates v. United States
692 F. App'x 629
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- In June 2008 Bates presented to a New Jersey county hospital with chest pain; later that day at a different hospital he was diagnosed with a heart attack.
- Bates sued the first hospital in New Jersey state court; exhibits and expert reports attached to a later federal filing alleged private medical negligence by that hospital’s staff.
- In 2015 Bates filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims alleging medical negligence and discrimination by unnamed defendants.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the Claims Court has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act only over suits against the United States, not private parties, and lacks jurisdiction over tort claims.
- The Claims Court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and declined to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 because Bates’s complaint failed to state a claim (did not identify defendants).
- Bates appealed; the Federal Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction over Bates’s claims | Bates argued expert and deposition evidence show constitutional and civil wrongs by doctors, supporting Claims Court jurisdiction | Government argued claims are against private parties and sound in tort, outside Tucker Act jurisdiction | Held: No jurisdiction; claims implicate private parties and torts, not a suit against the United States |
| Whether the Claims Court should have transferred the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 | Bates implicitly contended dismissal rather than transfer was improper | Government maintained dismissal was proper because complaint failed to state a viable claim | Held: No transfer; not in interest of justice because complaint failed to state a claim (did not identify defendants) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (Claims Court jurisdiction under Tucker Act does not extend to private parties)
- Waltner v. United States, 679 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (standard of review for Claims Court jurisdictional dismissals)
- Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction by preponderance of the evidence)
- Kelley v. Secretary, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (pro se litigants are not excused from meeting jurisdictional requirements)