From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Dec 29, 2008
305 Fed. Appx. 5 (3d Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-4628.

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 January 30, 2008.

Opinion filed December 29, 2008.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-00154), District Judge: Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin.

Grady Jackson Jr., White Deer, PA, pro se.

Before McKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges.


OPINION


Grady Jackson, Jr. appeals the District Court's order granting appellee's motion to dismiss his complaint. The procedural history of this case and the details of Jackson's claims are well known to the parties, set forth in the District Court's thorough opinion, and need not be discussed at length. Briefly, Jackson filed a complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging that several items of his property went missing when he was transferred to the Special Housing Unit. The District Court granted appellee's motion to dismiss and declined to exercise jurisdiction over any negligence claims arising under state law. Jackson filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The District Court held that Bureau of Prisons officers were "law enforcement officers" under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c). That section provides an exception to the United States' waiver of sovereign immunity for claims arising from the detention of property by law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court recently held the same in Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 831, 169 L.Ed.2d 680 (2008). Because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for Jackson's claims, the District Court did not err in dismissing Jackson's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

In Ali, a federal prisoner who had been transferred to a new prison alleged that several items of property were missing from his bags.

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court's order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. Appellee's motion to stay the appeal is denied as moot.


Summaries of

Jackson v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Dec 29, 2008
305 Fed. Appx. 5 (3d Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Jackson v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:Grady JACKSON, Jr., Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Dec 29, 2008

Citations

305 Fed. Appx. 5 (3d Cir. 2008)