Brant v. Cleveland Nat. Forest Service, 87-5972
Decision Date | 06 April 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 87-5972,87-5972 |
Citation | 843 F.2d 1222 |
Parties | George C. BRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE; Regional Fiscal Officer, Michael D. Duffy; Ralph C. Cisco; Michael J. Rogers; United States Department of Agriculture--Forest Service; Office of Personnel Management--Civil Service Retirement System; Disbursing Officer, Jack Adams; Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Janice S. Pohl and John Scott Loosen, Copeland, Kemp, Lugar & Pohl, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Maria A. Iizuka, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Before HUG, ALARCON and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
The United States Forest Service charged Brant for the cost of suppressing a fire on his property. See Cal.Health & Safety Code Sec. 13009(a) (West Supp.1988) ( ). After Brant refused to pay, the Forest Service resorted to an administrative offset against his federal pension. See 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3716 (1982). Brant filed suit in district court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, judicial review of the administrative offset, and damages equal to the pension moneys withheld under the offset. The district court held for defendants, however, and Brant filed a notice of appeal to this court.
Brant's claim against the United States is essentially one for money: He seeks pension funds that he alleges were wrongfully withheld by the United States pursuant to Cal.Health & Safety Code Sec. 13009(a). His claim thus falls under the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(a)(2) (1982), which covers claims against the United States founded upon "any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department." Indeed, Brant pleaded the Little Tucker Act in his complaint as a basis for jurisdiction in the district court.
Because Brant's claim against the United States is for less than $10,000, he properly brought it in the district court, which has concurrent jurisdiction with the United States Claims Court over Tucker Act claims not exceeding $10,000. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1346(a)(2). We have no jurisdiction over his appeal, however, because Congress established "exclusive Federal Circuit jurisdiction over every appeal from a Tucker Act or nontax Little Tucker Act claim." United States v. Hohri, 107 S.Ct. 2246, 2252 (1987) (emphasis original); see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1295(a)(2) (1982).
That Brant also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on grounds other than the Little Tucker Act is of no moment. Williams v. Secretary of the Navy, 787 F.2d 552, 558 (Fed.Cir.1986) (emphasis omitted). Because bifurcation of cases on appeal "would result in an inefficient commitment of the limited resources of the federal courts," even the non-Tucker Act claims must be appealed to the Federal Circuit. Hohri, 107 S.Ct. at 2250 n. 3; see also id. at 2253 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bembenista v. U.S., 88-5091
...the entire case must be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Brant v. Cleveland National Forest Service, 843 F.2d 1222, 1223-24 (9th Cir.1988). We find that we have jurisdiction over this appeal because "however ingeniously [the claims] have been plead......
-
Volk v. Hobson
...Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which transferred the case to us, No. 87-2084 (June 23, 1988), citing Brant v. Cleveland National Forest Service, 843 F.2d 1222 (9th Cir.1988). We surmise the court viewed Volk's complaint as based in part on her employment contract with BIA and her pr......
-
Breed v. Hughes Aircraft Company
.... does not divest[the Federal Circuit] of its constitutionally granted jurisdiction of the entire case.' " Brant v. Cleveland Nat'l Forest Serv., 843 F.2d 1222, 1223 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Williams v. Sec'y of the Navy, 787 F.2d 552, 558 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In other words, the presence in ......
-
Briggs v. U.S., C 07-05760 WHA.
...One. Subject-matter jurisdiction exists for Count One only pursuant to the Little Tucker Act. See also Brant v. Cleveland Nat. Forest Service, 843 F.2d 1222, 1223 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that an action alleging the wrongful withholding of pension funds falls under the Little Tucker Because ......