Joshua Porter v. United States

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 29, 2018
Docket17-15235
StatusUnpublished

This text of Joshua Porter v. United States (Joshua Porter v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Joshua Porter v. United States, (9th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 29 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSHUA PORTER, No. 17-15235

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00633-APG-CWH v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 8, 2018 Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Joshua Porter appeals the district court’s dismissal, for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction, of his claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act

("FTCA"). Reviewing de novo, Chen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 F.3d 1136, 1141

(9th Cir. 2016), we reverse and remand.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act ("FECA") provides the

exclusive remedy against the United States, 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c), to a federal

employee who is injured "while in the performance of his dut[ies]," id. § 8102(a).

"A plaintiff need only allege a colorable claim under FECA for our courts to lose

jurisdiction over an FTCA action." Moe v. United States, 326 F.3d 1065, 1068

(9th Cir. 2003). But the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine whether, as a

matter of law, a FECA claim is colorable. Figueroa v. United States, 7 F.3d 1405,

1408 (9th Cir. 1993). To the extent that the district court misunderstood the scope

of its jurisdiction, the court erred.

Here, there is no evidence that Plaintiff was injured while in the performance

of his duties. Whether or not he was on some sort of on-call status, the claim form

in the record unequivocally states that Plaintiff was not injured in the performance

of his duties but was, instead, "in a non duty status at his residence." There is no

contrary evidence, so there is no colorable claim under FECA. Therefore, as a

matter of law, FECA does not apply, and the federal courts have jurisdiction over

this FTCA claim.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

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

Related

Marilyn Moe v. United States
326 F.3d 1065 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Richard Chen v. Allstate Insurance Co.
819 F.3d 1136 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Figueroa v. United States
7 F.3d 1405 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Joshua Porter v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joshua-porter-v-united-states-ca9-2018.