Will v. Hallock
Hallock sued Will and several other employees of the United States Customs Service under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for damages resulting from the seizure of Hallock’s computer equipment in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In a previous action, Hallock had sued the United States government under the FTCA for the same Fifth Amendment violation. Although the FTCA waives the government’s sovereign immunity, actions for damage to goods seized by customs agents fall under an exception to the FTCA, under which sovereign immunity is not waived. Thus, the district court dismissed Hallock’s first suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Subsequently, Hallock brought this suit for the same damage against the customs employees instead of the United States. In district court, the defendants moved to dismiss the suit because the FTCA bars suits when judgment has been previously entered for a claim. The district court ruled in favor of Hallock and Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, declaring that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter as an interlocutory appeal. The Second Circuit ruled that Hallock had not properly presented a claim in the first suit because sovereign immunity had not been waived. Therefore, the second suit was not barred by the first suit’s dismissal because no final judgment had been entered in the first suit.
Questions Presented:
1. Whether a final judgment in an action brought under Section 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. ยง2676?
