Campbell v. United States

                         IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                                                No. 98-10616
                                              Summary Calendar



CAROL MIONE CAMPBELL et al.,

                                                                       Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                                                      versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                               Defendant-Appellee.
                          __________________________________________
                             Appeal from the United States District Court
                                  for the Northern District of Texas
                                     USDC No. 7:97-CV-207-X
                          __________________________________________

                                              February 11, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

        Carol Mione Campbell, Robert Mione, Mary Mione Rhoads, and Patricia Mione, individually

and on behalf of the estates of Joseph Mione and Sylvia Mione (appellants), appeal the district

court’s dismissal of their claims for property damage, personal injury, and wrongful death for an

automobile accident arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671, et seq.

The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

        The district court erred in dismissing the appellants’ claims on the basis of subject matter

jurisdiction. In t heir complaint, the appellants alleged that an employee of the United States was

acting within the scope of his employment when he negligently collided head on with another vehicle,

resulting in the damages brought under this claim. Based on these allegations, the appellants’

complaint survives a facial inquiry on subject matter jurisdiction. See Lewis v. Knutson, 699 F.2d

        *
           Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is
not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
230, 237 (5th Cir. 1983); Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 415 (5th Cir. 1981). Moreover, the

exceptions in Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1945), do not apply under the facts of this case.

       Contrary to its order, the district court does have subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the

merits of this case. Accordingly the district court’s order is vacated and the case remanded for

further proceedings on the merits.

       VACATE AND REMAND.




                                                 2