Will v. Hallock
Issues
(1) When an individual's suit against the government, brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, is dismissed due to an exception to the government waiver of sovereign immunity, may a second suit on the same grounds be brought against government employees?
(2) Was the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit the proper forum for an interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss the second suit against the government employees?
Under the Federal Tort Claims ACT ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. ? 1346(b), the federal government must waive its sovereign immunity from suit to allow private parties to sue the United States for torts committed by federal employees during the scope of their employment. The FTCA also has a judgment bar provision, 28 U.S.C. ? 2676, which prevents a plaintiff from suing multiple times on the same FTCA claim. This case originated when Respondent Susan Hallock brought a claim under the FTCA against the United States after the federal government improperly seized and damaged her property. Her suit was subsequently dismissed because the claim fell within one of the exceptions to the United States' waiver of sovereign immunity under the FTCA. Petitioners Richard Will and his fellow Customs Services agents now argue that the dismissal of Susan Hallock's FTCA claim should bar Hallock from bringing the same claim under the FTCA against the federal employees involved in the seizure of her property. Ultimately, the Court must decide whether general res judicata principles should apply to bar Hallock's suit. The Court's decision may have large implications for The Court's decision may have large implications for judgment finality, and it may also have substantive implications for federal employees' amenability to suit under the FTCA.
As an initial matter, however, the Court must decide whether Will's interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit was premature because the district court litigation did not formally conclude. Consequently, the Court may not even address the issue of the judgment bar provision's applicability, and the significance of the Court's decision will rest solely on its analysis of the collateral order doctrine.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
(1) Whether a final judgment in an action brought under 28 U.S.C. ? 1346(b) of the Federal Tort Claims Act, dismissing the claim on the ground that relief is precluded by one of the FTCA's exceptions to liability, 28 U.S.C. ? 2680, bars a subsequent action by the claimant against the federal employees whose acts gave rise to the FTCA claim?
(2) Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal of the District Court's order denying a motion to dismiss under the FTCA's judgment bar, 28 U.S.C. ? 2676?
Plaintiff Susan Hallock and her husband Richard Hallock operated a computer software business out of their home in Mohawk, New York. See Hallock v. Bonner, 387 F.3d 147, 150 (2d Cir. 2004).
Additional Resources
- http://www.west.net/~smith/resjud.htm (for information on res judicata)
- http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f071.htm (for information on the FTCA)
- http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c178.htm (for information on the collateral order doctrine)