Byers v. United States

Court of Claims

Byers v. United States

121 Ct. Cl. 40, 1951 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 122, 1951 WL 5333

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedDecember 4, 1951

DocketNo. 50100

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 121 Ct. Cl. 40 (Byers v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Byers v. United States, 121 Ct. Cl. 40, 1951 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 122, 1951 WL 5333 (cc 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion of the court, per curiam, as follows:

This case is before us on defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition because it shows that plaintiff’s claim sounds in tort.

This suit is brought against the Bureau of Prisons, but we treat it as a suit against the United States. However, it is plain that the Court has no jurisdiction of the action even though it had been brought against the United States, because it clearly sounds in tort.

Plaintiff says that he had a claim against all or a part of a fund of $241,076.69, which he alleges was in the hands of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and that he sought to file a petition with that court setting up his claim, but that the parole officer and associate warden at Leavenworth Penitentiary where plaintiff was incarcerated denied him permission to do so. It is for this act that plaintiff sues. [41]*41He says be is suing on a contract expressed or implied, but, plainly, he is not. He is suing for an alleged wrongful act of defendant’s officers unconnected with any contract. Over such an action this court has no original jurisdiction. Hill v. United States, 149 U. S. 593, 598; Gibbons v. United States, 7 C. Cls. 105; 8 Wall. 269.

Defendant’s motion is sustained, and plaintiff’s petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion of the court, per curiam, as follows:

This case is before us on defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition because it shows that plaintiff’s claim sounds in tort.

This suit is brought against the Bureau of Prisons, but we treat it as a suit against the United States. However, it is plain that the Court has no jurisdiction of the action even though it had been brought against the United States, because it clearly sounds in tort.

Plaintiff says that he had a claim against all or a part of a fund of $241,076.69, which he alleges was in the hands of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and that he sought to file a petition with that court setting up his claim, but that the parole officer and associate warden at Leavenworth Penitentiary where plaintiff was incarcerated denied him permission to do so. It is for this act that plaintiff sues. [41]*41He says be is suing on a contract expressed or implied, but, plainly, he is not. He is suing for an alleged wrongful act of defendant’s officers unconnected with any contract. Over such an action this court has no original jurisdiction. Hill v. United States, 149 U. S. 593, 598; Gibbons v. United States, 7 C. Cls. 105; 8 Wall. 269.

Defendant’s motion is sustained, and plaintiff’s petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 Ct. Cl. 40, 1951 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 122, 1951 WL 5333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byers-v-united-states-cc-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack