Exception To Waiver Of Sovereign Immunity Results In Dismissal On The Merits - Not For Lack Of Jurisdiction
WILLIAMS v. FLEMING (February 26, 2010)
.jpg)
Jessie Williams had several million dollars of loans from Family Bank & Trust Company. As of late 2005, Williams' loans were in good standing -- he had never even been late with a payment. The FDIC conducted a routine examination of Family Bank in late 2005. Jerry Fleming was the Associate Examiner in charge. Williams alleges that Fleming made racially disparaging remarks about him, the city of Harvey, and the Bank's practice of lending to African-Americans. Williams also alleges that Fleming instructed the Bank not to lend to him anymore. Williams brought a Fifth Amendment claim against Family Bank, an Illinois Human Rights Act claim against the Bank and the United States, and a Fifth Amendment Bivens claim against Fleming. The district court: dismissed Family Bank because it is not a state actor, dismissed the United States on sovereign immunity grounds and because the FDIC did not act as a financial institution (an element of the Illinois Human Rights Act claim), and dismissed Fleming pursuant to the Federal Tort Claim Act's judgment bar. Williams appeals only the dismissal of Fleming.
In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Rovner, and Williams affirmed. The general rule, noted the Court, is that one may not sue the United States for torts committed by it or its agents. The Federal Tort Claims Act was enacted to allow suits against the United States under certain circumstances and with certain limitations. One of the limitations is the judgment bar, which provides that a judgment in one action bars a claim arising from the same subject matter against the government employee allegedly responsible for the tortious act. The issue here was whether the dismissal of the United States was such a judgment that barred the action against Fleming. Although the district court labeled its dismissal as one for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, thereby raising the issue of whether a judgment must be on the merits to trigger the judgment bar, the Court disagreed. Although it recognized that its view was the minority position, the Court reiterated its approach to the statutory exceptions to waiver. The Federal Tort Claims Act authorizes federal courts to hear tort claims against the United States. If the tort claim falls within one of the exceptions to the Act's waiver of sovereign immunity, the claim is dismissed because the United States has a defense -- not because the court is deprived of jurisdiction. The dismissal below was therefore on the merits, and the judgment bar applies.
Michael Rigney practices in the law offices of GVC Ltd. in Chicago. In this blog, he reports on select