Toohey v. United States
105 Fed. Cl. 97
| Fed. Cl. | 2012Background
- Pro se plaintiff Toohey filed a complaint against the United States under the FTCA for negligent Malathion spraying in Tampa, Florida.
- Plaintiff alleges chronic infections, skin lesions, hypertension, anxiety, and fatigue allegedly from the spraying.
- Plaintiff seeks one million dollars for medical expenses, lost wages, and loans.
- The court sua sponte dismisses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and transfers to the Western District of Texas under RCFC 12(h)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
- The FTCA provides exclusive jurisdiction in district courts; the Tucker Act does not authorize tort claims; transfer is appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the FTCA grant jurisdiction here? | Toohey asserts FTCA jurisdiction over her tort claim. | Court lacks FTCA jurisdiction; FTCA claims are not within this court's jurisdiction. | Lacks FTCA jurisdiction; FTCA claims dismissed. |
| Are plaintiff's non-FTCA tort claims within the court's reach? | Plaintiff asserts general tort claims against the United States. | Tucker Act excludes tort claims from this court’s jurisdiction. | Tucker Act excludes tort claims; claims dismissed. |
| Is transfer to another federal court appropriate? | Not explicitly addressed by plaintiff. | Transfer is appropriate when lacking jurisdiction and in the interest of justice. | Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 appropriate; matter moved to Western District of Texas. |
Key Cases Cited
- Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte requirement)
- Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (jurisdictional inquiry from pleadings)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (pro se pleading standards)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (need for independent money-mandating right)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (Tucker Act and jurisdictional basis for suits against U.S.)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (no substantive rights absent money-mandating source)
- Tex. Peanut Farmers v. United States, 409 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (transfer consideration when lack of jurisdiction)