Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFRED M. ADAMS, an Arizona N0. 04-16702
resident and citizen, D.C. No. CV—03-01480-ROS
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. JUDGMENT
_ CC i CUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, c
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix).
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted.
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this 0
_ _ ,V,,_ Court, that the judgment ofthe said District Court this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRMED.
Filed and entered 06/28/06 i
SAY`?-1LiE/§(gK¥TERSON
Clerk 0f Ccnurt
r Arrest
I UB t 8 2006,
; L V
Case 2:03-cv—O1480—ROS Document 15 Filed 08/25/ 0 ar. age 0 3

{JOCKETED A I y ;¤ F I L E D
.. g NOT Pon PUBLICATION JUN 28 2006
cATHvA.cmTeas0m cusmt
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ”-S—°°”**'°tA*’P'€·*LS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT .
ALFRED M. ADAMS, an Arizona N0. 04-16702
. resident and citizen, ‘
D.C. No. C\/-03-01480-ROS
Plaintiff- Appellant,
v. I MEMORANDUM " _
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, . .
Defendant - Appellee. ,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 14, 2006
_ San Francisco, California
Before: RYMER and.T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and KING, **ASenior
Judge. .
°` This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be
. cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule
36-3.
l " The Honorable Samuel P. King, Senior United States District Judge
for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
. Case 2:03—cv—01480—ROS Document 15 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 2 of 3

. _ Alfred M. Adams appeals the district courft’s dismissal of his claim under p
the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)' for lack of jurisdiction. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court correctly determined that Adams’s claim for false light
g invasi_on of privacy arose out of defamation as that tort is traditionally defined.2
The dissemination of false information underlies Adams’s claim as well as the
traditional tort of defamation? Accordingly, the FTCA does not waive the United
States’s sovereign immunity as to Adams’s claim,4 and the district court therefore
lacked jurisdiction. S
AFFIRMED,
S é,!.lil€FE8K¥iERSe~
· Clerk of Court
T ATTEST
g . UG 1 B ZUU6
—_"__""""_ —”"` J| '
' 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80. r "".. -
p 2 See 28 U.-S.C. § 2680(h); Sheehan v. United States, 896 F.2d 1.168, . e
1169-72 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that, when construing the meaning of the torts
enumerated by 28 U.S.C. § 2680, the court looks to the "traditional" meaning of
the tort “commonly under·stood" or "established" at the time Congress enacted the .
FTCA).
3 · Our inquiry focuses not on Adams’s characterization of his claim,
but on the conduct underlying it. Sheehan, 896 F.2d at 1171; Block v. Neal, 460
U.S. 289, 296-97 (1983); United States v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696, 705-08 (1961).
4 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h).
Case 2:03-cv—01480—ROS Document 15 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01480-ROS

Document 15

Filed 08/25/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01480-ROS

Document 15

Filed 08/25/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01480-ROS

Document 15

Filed 08/25/2006

Page 3 of 3