Romulo Portillo v. United States
This text of Romulo Portillo v. United States (Romulo Portillo 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.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROMULO ANTONIO PORTILLO, No. 18-15300
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00394-JAD- CWH v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Romulo Antonio Portillo, a former federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his
Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action arising from an allegedly negligent
miscalculation of Portillo’s sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1291. We review de novo. Snow-Erlin v. United States, 470 F.3d 804, 807 (9th
Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Portillo’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because the FTCA bars claims against the United States arising
out of false imprisonment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) (FTCA waiver does not apply
to any claim arising out false imprisonment); Snow-Erlin, 470 F.3d at 808-09 (“If
the gravamen of [p]laintiff’s complaint is a claim for an excluded tort under
§ 2680(h), then the claim is barred. . . . Plaintiff cannot sidestep the FTCA’s
exclusion of false imprisonment claims by suing for the damage of false
imprisonment under the label of negligence.”).
Because we conclude the district court lacked jurisdiction, we do not
consider Portillo’s contentions regarding the merits of his claims.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-15300
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Romulo Portillo v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romulo-portillo-v-united-states-ca9-2018.