Cheney v. U.S., 91-3444NI
| Decision Date | 23 September 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-3444NI,91-3444NI |
| Citation | 972 F.2d 247 |
| Parties | Thomas J. CHENEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Thomas J. Cheney, pro se.
Paul C. Lillios, Asst. U.S. Atty., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, argued, for appellee.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, FAGG, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
Thomas J. Cheney appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States in this Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) lawsuit. We affirm.
In May 1987, following a search of the home Cheney shared with Stephanie Oberbroeckling, an agent of the federal drug task force seized items contained in their joint safe deposit box. In June 1987, the agent returned to Oberbroeckling a car title certificate that had been taken from the box. Cheney asserts he owned the car to which the title certificate belonged; he had an agreement with a storage facility to release the car to anyone presenting the title certificate; the agent informed Oberbroeckling of this agreement; Oberbroeckling retrieved the car from storage; and while the car was in her possession, the car was damaged and its value destroyed. Cheney brought this action under FTCA, contending the United States is liable for the damage to the car based on the acts of its agent in releasing the title certificate to Oberbroeckling.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States, holding Cheney's claim falls within an exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c), the FTCA's broad waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply to "claim[s] arising [from] ... the detention of any goods or merchandise by any ... law-enforcement officer." This exception extends to damage claims resulting from the negligent handling of detained property. Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848, 854, 104 S.Ct. 1519, 1523, 79 L.Ed.2d 860 (1984). Cheney, however, contends this exception does not apply to his claim because the United States never actually possessed the car. Instead, Cheney maintains that because the United States's agent enabled Oberbroeckling to gain possession of the car, leading to the car's destruction, the United States is liable under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2674 "for injury or loss of property ... caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of the agent who was acting within the scope of his employment. Id. § 1346(b).
Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court properly held Cheney's claim falls within the section 2680(c) exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. Cheney's claim is based on the agent's action in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons
...of Justice, 339 F.3d 388, 390 (C.A.5 2003) (per curiam); Hatten v. White, 275 F.3d 1208, 1210 (C.A.10 2002); Cheney v. United States, 972 F.2d 247, 248 (C.A.8 1992) (per curiam); Ysasi v. Rivkind, 856 F.2d 1520, 1525 (C.A.Fed.1988). Five other Courts of Appeals reached the contrary conclusi......
-
Abc v. Def
...339 F.3d 388 (5th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (same); Hatten v. White, 275 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir.2002) (same); Cheney v. United States, 972 F.2d 247 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (same); Schlaebitz v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 924 F.2d 193 (11th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (same); Ysasi v. Rivkind, 856 F.2d......
-
U.S. v. Chambers
...654 (5th Cir.1992) (seizure of property by INS), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 925, 113 S.Ct. 1297, 122 L.Ed.2d 687 (1993); Cheney v. United States, 972 F.2d 247 (8th Cir.1992) (damages from release of title certificate by federal drug task force to third party); Schlaebitz v. U.S. Department of J......
-
Samuels v. Bureau of Prisons, Civil Action No. 06-40085-RCL.
...of Justice, 339 F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir.2003) (same); Hatten v. White, 275 F.3d 1208, 1210 (10th Cir.2002) (same); Cheney v. United States, 972 F.2d 247, 248 (8th Cir.1992) (holding claim against federal drug task force officer based on seizure of property in course of search barred by § 268......
-
Of Two Minds About Plain Meaning: the Supreme Court's Interpretation of the Word "any" in 28 U.s.c. Section 2680(c) - Kevin Hembree
...U.S. Dep't of Justice, 339 F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir. 2003); Hatten v. White, 275 F.3d 1208, 1210 (10th Cir. 2002); Cheney v. United States, 972 F.2d 247, 248 (8th Cir. 1992); Ysasi v. Rivkind, 856 F.2d 1520, 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). 14. Id. (citing ABC v. DEF, 500 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir. 2007);......