O'Keefe v. United States of America et al
Filing
13
ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that 12 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is GRANTED and the plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon on 8/22/2018. (sa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHAEL H. O'KEEFE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 18-4377
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ET AL.
SECTION: "S" (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #12) is
GRANTED, and plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED.
BACKGROUND
This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
filed by defendants, the United States of America and the United States Department of Justice.
Plaintiff, Michael H. O'Keefe, filed this action alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, for false imprisonment arising out of his criminal prosecution and conviction
in this court. In 1995, the Grand Jury in the Eastern District of Louisiana indicted O'Keefe and
others for conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. United States v. Michael
O'Keefe, Sr., et al., Criminal Action No. 95-106. Following a two-week trial in 1996, a jury found
O'Keefe guilty of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, two counts of wire fraud, three counts
of mail fraud, and ten counts of money laundering. This court sentenced O'Keefe to serve 235
months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit affirmed. O'Keefe alleges that the Department of Justice improperly failed to release him
when the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in United States v. Santos, 553 U.S.
507 (2008), which O'Keefe argues invalidated his money laundering conviction.
The United States and the Department of Justice filed the instant motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The defendants argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because O'Keefe failed to file
an administrative claim with the Department of Justice, and a claim for false imprisonment is not
cognizable under the FTCA. The defendants also argue that this court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over O'Keefe's unjust conviction clam, which can be brought only in the United States
Court of Federal Claims.
ANALYSIS
I.
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
"Motions filed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to
challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to hear a case.” Ramming v. United
States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001). “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be found in any
one of three instances: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts
evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's
resolution of disputed facts.” Id. In a 12(b)(1) motion, the party asserting jurisdiction bears the
burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exists. Id.
II.
Federal Tort Claims Act
The defendants argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over O'Keefe's false
imprisonment claim brought under the FTCA. As a sovereign, the United States “is immune from
suit save as it consents to be sued[.]” United States v. Mitchell, 100 U.S. 1349, 1351 (1980). “The
FTCA is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity that allows plaintiffs to bring state law tort actions
2
against the federal government.” Tsolmon v. United States, 841 F.3d 378, 382 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing
Willoughby v. United States ex rel. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 730 F.3d 476, 479 (5th Cir. 2013)). The
FTCA excludes from its limited waiver of sovereign immunity claims against the government for
false imprisonment. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). Because the FTCA clearly states that claims for false
imprisonment are not included in the FTCA's limited waiver of sovereign immunity, this court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over such claims. The defendants' motion to dismiss O'Keefe's claim for
false imprisonment brought under the FTCA is GRANTED, and that claims is DISMISSED.
III.
Claims for Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment under 28 U.S.C. § 1495
The defendants argue that this court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction over O'Keefe's
claims for unjust conviction and imprisonment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1495, "[t]he United States
Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim for damages by
any person unjustly convicted of an offense against the United States and imprisoned." This court
is the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, not the United States Court
of Federal Claims. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss O'Keefe's claims for unjust
conviction and imprisonment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED, and those claims
are DISMISSED.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #12) is
GRANTED, and plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED.
3
22nd
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of August, 2018.
____________________________________
MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?