Brown v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 05 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 72-G-66. |
| Citation | 373 F. Supp. 973 |
| Parties | Richard M. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. Donald E. JOHNSON et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Marcial A. Knapp, Angleton, Tex., for plaintiff.
Anthony J. P. Farris, U. S. Atty., Mary L. Sinderson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for defendants.
Because of plaintiff's delinquency in making house payments on his Veterans Administration mortgage loan, defendant John C. Von Dohlen, an official of the Veterans Administration, conducted a foreclosure sale of the property on September 7, 1972. After plaintiff refused to vacate the premises, the government brought eviction proceedings in Justice of the Peace Court, Brazoria County, Texas. Unsuccessful there, the government filed suit in County Court, Brazoria County for a trial de novo.
On May 22, 1972, plaintiff filed a quiet title action in state district court against Donald E. Johnson, who is the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, and John C. Von Dohlen. Defendants removed the latter suit to this Court, based on the involvement of the federal officials. Defendants move for dismissal for want of jurisdiction, alleging sovereign immunity. The motion to dismiss and plaintiff's opposition have been carried with the case to this point.
As defendants point out, although federal officers are named as defendants, any judgment would operate against the United States. Simons v. Vinson, 394 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1968). With two exceptions, not relevant here, Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 621, 83 S. Ct. 999, 10 L.Ed.2d 15 (1963), suits against the United States may only be prosecuted if the sovereign has consented. Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949); State of Louisiana v. McAdoo, 234 U.S. 627, 34 S.Ct. 938, 58 L.Ed. 1506 (1914).
The provision relied upon by plaintiff as providing the necessary consent is 28 U.S.C. § 2410. That provision relates only to property on which the United States claims a lien. Stapleton v. $2,438,110, 454 F.2d 1210 (3rd Cir. 1971). It does not apply to disputes over property on which the United States claims title. Anderson v. United States, 229 F.2d 675 (5th Cir. 1956); Zager v. United States, 256 F.Supp. 396 (E.D.Wis.1966). Until recently, such suits were barred by sovereign immunity and the sovereign's failure to give consent to be sued. Malone v. Bowdoin, 369 U.S. 643, 82 S.Ct. 980, 8 L.Ed.2d 168 (1962); Rambo v. United States, 145 F.2d 670 (5th Cir. 1944).
The recently passed Pub.L. 92-562, 86 Stat. 1176, effective October 25, 1972, now allows suits such as this one. See 1972 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 1367, 4547 (1972). Section 3(a), 28 U. S.C. § 2409a, provides:
The United States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest, other than a security interest or water rights.
Another section of the Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(f) vests the federal district courts with exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions under Section 2409a. This grant of exclusive jurisdiction requires dismissal of this removed cause of action.
This Court's removal jurisdiction is derivative and limited to suits over which the state court had proper original jurisdiction. General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore Ry., 260 U.S. 261, 268, 43 S.Ct. 106, 67 L.Ed. 244 (1922). If the state court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pavlov v. Parsons
...58 (1981); Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 258 U.S. 377, 382, 42 S.Ct. 349, 351, 66 L.Ed. 671 (1922); Brown v. Johnson, 373 F.Supp. 973, 974-75 (S.D.Tx.1974). Thus, if the District Court of Harris County, where plaintiff originally brought suit, lacked jurisdiction to enjoin d......
-
McClellan v. Kimball, 77-4013
...§ 1346(f). A state court does not have jurisdiction to decide quiet title actions against the United States. E. g., Brown v. Johnson, 373 F.Supp. 973 (S.D.Tex.1974). The district court in this action did not have jurisdiction. The action was properly We AFFIRM. * Bruce R. Thompson, United S......
- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OP. COM'N v. Rinella & Rinella
-
Crumpacker v. Andrus, H 77-0322.
...v. United States, 431 F.Supp. 88, 89 (W.D.Okl.1977); Isham v. Blount, 373 F.Supp. 1376, 1377 (E.D.Tenn.1974); Brown v. Johnson, 373 F.Supp. 973, 974-975 (S.D. Tex.1974). There is no question but that this action is one to quiet title within the meaning of section 2409a(a); indeed, plaintiff......