老澳门开奖结果

The 老澳门开奖结果, together with its Michigan and Utah affiliates, filed an amicus brief in support of James King. Mr. King alleges that two plainclothes task force officers wrongfully stopped, arrested, and beat him, when the officers mistook him for a fugitive. He brought a single lawsuit鈥攁gainst the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), and against the individual officers for constitutional violations under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court dismissed Mr. King鈥檚 FTCA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and also dismissed his Bivens claims. Mr. King appealed the dismissal of his Bivens claims but not the dismissal of his FTCA claims. The individual officers argue that the district court鈥檚 decision dismissing Mr. King鈥檚 FTCA claims precludes him from pursuing his independent constitutional claims against them..

The FTCA bars adjudication of claims against individuals if judgment has been entered on an FTCA claim arising out of the same events. Amici argue that this 鈥渏udgment bar鈥� provision does not apply to dismissals for lack of jurisdiction, but only to rulings on the merits. It was adopted against the backdrop of the common law claim 鈥渞es judicata鈥� doctrine, and thus necessarily incorporates the common law understanding that only judgments on the merits have claim preclusive effect. Dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are not judgments on the merits, and therefore do not trigger the judgment bar. Where, as here, a district court rules that the plaintiff failed even to allege facts to support a valid FTCA claim, the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, and a dismissal on that ground is not a 鈥渏udgment鈥� for purposes of the judgment bar provision. We argue that Mr. King has never had a ruling on the merits, and should get his day in court.