Hill v. United States of America

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Denying 10 MOTION to Dismiss filed by United States of America. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 10/7/2013. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GERALD HILL,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-cv-307-JPG-PMF

vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant United States of America’s (“USA”)
motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to which plaintiff
Gerald Hill has responded (Doc. 13).
Challenges to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction are considered under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Under that rule, a defendant can challenge a court’s subject matter
jurisdiction in two ways. He may make a facial challenge to the sufficiency of the complaint’s
jurisdictional allegations as a matter of law, in which case, as with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, all wellpleaded factual allegations are accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Angus Chem. Co., 322 F.3d 942, 946 (7th Cir. 2003).
Alternatively, where a complaint is facially sufficient, a defendant may challenge the actual
facts establishing jurisdiction, in which case the plaintiff is not entitled to have his allegations taken
as true or to have any inferences drawn in his favor. United Phosphorus, 322 F.3d at 946;
Sapperstein v. Hager, 188 F.3d 852, 855-56 (7th Cir. 1999). To resolve a challenge to the facts, a
court may receive and weigh evidence outside the allegations in the complaint to determine if it has
subject matter jurisdiction over the case. United Phosphorus, 322 F.3d at 946. In any case, the
plaintiff has the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Id.

Here, the USA seeks to challenge this Court’s jurisdiction in the second way. Specifically,
the USA argues this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Hill’s claim because the FTCA’s statute of
limitations is jurisdictional, and Hill filed his claim beyond that statutory limitation. The USA is
correct in noting that the Seventh Circuit has previously characterized the FTCA’s statute of
limitations as jurisdictional and properly considered on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion. See Charlton v.
United States, 743 F.2d 557, 558 (7th Cir. 1984). Recently, however, the Supreme Court explained
that courts should not treat a statutory limitation as jurisdictional absent a clear statement from
Congress. Sebelius v. Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 817 (2013). In light of Sebelius, the
Seventh Circuit concluded that the FTCA statute of limitations is not jurisdictional. Arteaga v.
United States, 711 F.3d 828, 832 (7th Cir. 2013). Not only is the FTCA void of a clear statement
declaring the statutory limitation jurisdictional, but Congress expressly included the following
language: “the United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort
claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.”
Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2674).
Because the FTCA’s statute of limitations is not jurisdictional, the USA’s motion is not
appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Further, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure contain no mechanism by which this Court may convert the USA’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion
into a summary judgment motion. See Capitol Leasing Co. v. F.D.I.C., 999 F.2d 188, 191 (7th Cir.
1993). Accordingly, the Court must DENY the USA’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 10).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 7, 2013
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2