Jackson v. United States of America
248 F. Supp. 3d 167
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Orville Nix filmed the Kennedy assassination; he sold the original film to UPI in 1963 with an alleged agreement to return it to his family after 25 years. The FBI and later the HSCA used copies in their investigations.
- Nix died in 1972; the original film went missing. In 1988–1991 Gayle Nix Jackson (granddaughter) sought return of the original film and related copyrights; UPI’s successor returned related materials but not the original film.
- In 2014 Jackson learned the HSCA had obtained the original film in 1978 and that after HSCA it should have been transferred to NARA; she requested the original film and the HSCA chain-of-custody index from NARA in 2015 but was told NARA did not possess the original and the index was missing.
- Jackson sued the United States seeking replevin (asserting ownership and at least $10 million in value) and a Fifth Amendment taking claim for just compensation.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the FTCA for replevin; exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act for takings).
- The district court dismissed: it found Jackson failed to plead exhaustion required by the FTCA for her replevin claim, and held the takings claim (seeking > $10,000) lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson exhausted administrative remedies for her FTCA replevin claim | Jackson contacted NARA and requested the film/index and thus exhausted administrative remedies | Government: Jackson did not present a proper administrative claim with a written description and sum-certain damages as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) and GAF Corp. | Court: Jackson failed to show the required administrative presentation and sum-certain claim; court lacks jurisdiction over replevin claim |
| Whether the district court has jurisdiction over Jackson's Fifth Amendment takings claim seeking $10 million | Jackson seeks just compensation in district court for a taking/loss of the film | Government: Takings claims for > $10,000 fall within exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act | Court: Takings claim exceeds $10,000 and is within exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims; district court lacks jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (describing FTCA exhaustion requirements: written claim describing injury and sum-certain damages)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Hayes v. United States, 539 F. Supp. 2d 393 (D.D.C. 2008) (FTCA administrative exhaustion is a jurisdictional prerequisite)
- Clark v. Library of Cong., 750 F.2d 89 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Tucker Act and constitutional claims context)
- Havens v. Mabus, 759 F.3d 91 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction for claims exceeding $10,000 under Tucker Act)
- Mac’Avoy v. The Smithsonian Inst., 757 F. Supp. 60 (D.D.C. 1991) (replevin as a tort governed by the FTCA)