Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-17-2008
Perez v. USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2701
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Perez v. USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1434.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1434
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
CLD-150 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-2701
___________
JUAN M. PEREZ,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-01508)
District Judge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 6, 2008
Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed March 17, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Juan M. Perez appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissing his civil action against the United States. For the
foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm.
Perez filed a complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) claiming that
Special Agents of the Secret Service took four pairs of prescription eyeglasses with other
items they seized when they arrested him on an outstanding warrant. He sought return of
the glasses by filing an administrative claim with the Secret Service, but the glasses were
never returned. After Perez filed suit under the FTCA, the United States moved to
dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It argued that the Secret Service
agents were exempt from liability under the FTCA under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c), which
provides an exception to the government’s waiver of liability for “[a]ny claim arising in
respect of . . . the detention of goods, merchandise, or other property by any law
enforcement officer.” The District Court agreed that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
because the agents were exempt from the waiver of liability, and it dismissed the lawsuit.
Perez filed this appeal.1
Summary action is warranted when “no substantial question” is presented by the
appeal or when subsequent precedent warrants such action. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4, I.O.P.
10.6. In this instance, summary affirmance is entirely appropriate because the United
States Supreme Court has recently held that the exception under § 2680(c) broadly
applies to all law enforcement officers. See Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, –S. Ct.–,
No. 06-9130, 2008 WL 169359 (Jan. 22, 2008). Because Congress has not waived the
1
At the United States’ request, we stayed the appeal pending the outcome of a United
States Supreme Court case dealing with the exception from liability under 28 U.S.C. §
2680(c). See Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, –S. Ct.–, No. 06-9130, 2008 WL 169359
(Jan. 22, 2008).
2
United States’ sovereign immunity for Perez’ claim, the District Court properly dismissed
the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court.
3