Upshaw v. United States
673 F. App'x 985
Fed. Cir.2016Background
- Upshaw owned a 1992 Kenworth tractor and a Dorsey trailer he alleges were wrongfully seized in a civil forfeiture.
- He sued in the Court of Federal Claims on November 6, 2015, naming private individuals and a private company; the court construed the complaint as asserting claims against the United States.
- Upshaw asserted two theories: (1) a violation of the civil-forfeiture notice provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 983; and (2) tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671–2680.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the Court of Federal Claims granted the motion on July 28, 2016.
- The Court of Federal Claims held (a) § 983 claims lie in federal district courts under that statute’s remedial scheme, not the Court of Federal Claims; and (b) Tucker Act jurisdiction does not cover tort claims and Avon Police Department (a local entity) is not a federal agency.
- Upshaw appealed; the Federal Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over a § 983 forfeiture/notice claim | Upshaw contends his property was forfeited without proper notice and the Claims Court can hear it after construing the complaint against the U.S. | Government argues § 983 provides a comprehensive district-court remedial scheme, displacing Tucker Act jurisdiction | Held: No — § 983 claims are for district courts under its remedial scheme, not the Court of Federal Claims |
| Whether FTCA tort claims can be heard in the Court of Federal Claims | Upshaw seeks damages under the FTCA for tortious conduct causing loss of property | Government contends Tucker Act excludes tort claims and local police are not federal actors | Held: No — Tucker Act excludes tort claims; Claims Court lacks jurisdiction; local police not federal agency |
| Whether construing complaint against the United States supplies Tucker Act jurisdiction | Upshaw argues liberal construction to name U.S. enables jurisdiction in Claims Court | Government argues correct defendant alone is insufficient; claim must fall within Tucker Act categories | Held: No — naming or construing suit against U.S. is insufficient; claim must be Tucker Act-type claim |
| Whether factual pleading that government seized property was adequately alleged to invoke Claims Court jurisdiction | Upshaw’s pleadings imply government involvement in seizure | Government notes complaint didn’t sufficiently allege federal action; even if it had, statute-based and tort exclusions bar jurisdiction | Held: Allegations insufficient; and even if shown, statutory scheme and tort exclusion preclude Claims Court jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (standard: party invoking jurisdiction bears burden by preponderance; review of jurisdiction is de novo)
- Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Tucker Act jurisdiction displaced where a statutory forfeiture regime provides comprehensive remedies)
- U.S. Marine, Inc. v. United States, 722 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Tucker Act excludes claims sounding in tort)