Turner v. Ralston
| Decision Date | 05 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-C-419.,75-C-419. |
| Citation | 409 F. Supp. 1260 |
| Parties | Thomas L. TURNER, Plaintiff, v. George RALSTON, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
Thomas L. Turner, pro se.
David C. Mebane, U. S. Atty. by John R. Byrnes, Asst. U. S. Atty., Madison, Wis., for defendant.
This is a civil action for damages and injunctive relief from an alleged infringement of rights secured to plaintiff by the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff is confined in the Federal Correctional Institution, Oxford, Wisconsin, and defendant is the warden of that Institution. Defendant has moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Rules 12(b), 56, on the sole ground that this action is governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80, and that plaintiff has failed to comply with a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Act because he has not filed a claim with the appropriate agency before bringing suit.
Congress has expressly stated what the effect of the availability of a remedy under the Federal Tort Claims Act shall be upon an action against the responsible official individually for the same wrongful conduct. A judgment against the United States under the Act bars a later suit against the individual federal employee whose act or omission gave rise to the liability of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2676 (1970). Moreover, the Act is the exclusive remedy for injuries caused by automobile accidents for which federal employees are responsible. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b) (1970).
Unless recovery is had from the United States or the liability arises from an automobile accident, "the Tort Claims Act does not touch the liability of the federal employees . . .." United States v. Gilman, 347 U.S. 507, 509, 74 S.Ct. 695, 696, 98 L.Ed. 898, 901 (1954). An injured person in a non-automobile case may at his option sue the federal official responsible for the injury instead of or in addition to the government. See, e. g., Henderson v. Bluemink, 167 U.S.App.D.C. 161, 511 F.2d 399, 403-04 (1974); Uptagrafft v. United States, 315 F.2d 200, 201 (4th Cir. 1963); Byrd v. Warden, 376 F.Supp. 37, 41 (S.D. N.Y.1974). In fact, a judgment against the individual officer does not preclude a later action against the United States, although double recovery is impermissible. Adams v. Jackel, 220 F.Supp. 764, 766 (E.D.N.Y.1963).
The Tort Claims Act by its terms applies only when the action is against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (1970). The responsible official may not be joined with the United States in an action under the Act. Williams v. United States, 405 F.2d 951 (9th Cir. 1969). Therefore, 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (1970), which requires presentation of the claim to the appropriate agency as a precondition to an action against the United States, does not apply where the action is against the individual federal official.
Since the availability of a remedy against the United States under the Tort Claims Act has no bearing on a suit against the individual federal employee, I need not decide whether plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crain v. Krehbiel
...347 U.S. 507, 509, 74 S.Ct. 695, 98 L.Ed. 898 (1954); Williams v. United States, 405 F.2d 951, 954 (9 Cir. 1969); Turner v. Ralston, 409 F.Supp. 1260, 1261 (W.D.Wis.1976). 2. United States In order to establish an implied right of action against federal agents under the Constitution, plaint......
-
Ivey v. US
...agency as precondition to action against United States, does not apply where action against individual federal official.' Turner v. Ralston 409 F.Supp. 1260 (1976, DCWis).'" See Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 12-1, at 2. Plaintiff's position is inaccurate. The Federal......
-
Northridge Bank v. Community Eye Care Center, Inc.
...is consent to be sued against the government officials, and there is no exhaustion requirement as to them." Although Turner v. Ralston, 409 F.Supp. 1260 (W.D.Wis.1976), cited by appellant, appears to support Community's argument that jurisdiction can exist independently for claims against i......
-
Treho v. US, Civ. No. R-77-0229 BRT.
...of action is allegeable against the federal officers for damages in excess of $10,000, this Court has jurisdiction. Turner v. Ralston, 409 F.Supp. 1260 (W.D.Wis.1976); Crain v. Krehbiel, 443 F.Supp. 202 (N.D.Cal.1978); Butler v. Mansfield, 452 F.Supp. 303 (E.D.Tenn.1978). There is also a po......