Patterson v. United States of America

Filing 27

ORDER re 14 MOTION to Dismiss filed by United States of America. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 9/29/17. (DJP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SEP 2 9 2017

DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
CENTRAL DIVISION
*****************************************************************************

PEGGY PATTERSON,
CIV 16-3041

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: MOTION TO

vs.

DISMISS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant.
******************************************************************************

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 14, and Plaintiffs
Motion for Denial of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 21. For the reasons set forth herein,

the Court hereby notifies the Parties that the Court will rule on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
following submission by the parties of materials for the Court's consideration regarding the
Court's jurisdiction.

"A district court has the authority to dismiss an action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction on any one of three separate bases: "(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." Johnson v. United States, 534 F.3d
958, 962 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir. 1981)). In
Osborn v. United States, the district court looked to matters outside the pleadings on a motion
that it construed as one for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724,

728 (8th Cir. 1990). On appeal, then, the Eighth Circuit had to address what standard of review
governs the district court's determination of a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) when matters outside
the pleadings are considered. Id. Recognizing that Rule 12 requires Rule 56 standards be applied
to motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) when the court considers

matters outside the pleadings, the Court acknowledged that some courts have held that Rule 56
also governs a 12(b)(1) motion under the same circumstances. Id. at 729. However, the Eighth
Circuit agreed "with the majority ofthe circuits that have held to the contrary." Id.