Norman Peck v. Beth Wenstrom

MEMORANDUM

Norman Peck appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his motion for remand and dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action challenging his termination from the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, and for clear error any factual findings regarding jurisdictional issues. Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023, 1029 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Peck’s motion for remand because Peck failed to establish that his state law claims against individual federal employees who were certified by the U.S. Attorney General to be acting within the scope of their employment should not proceed in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) with the United States as the proper defendant. See Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225, 229-32, 252 , 127 S.Ct. 881 , 166 L.Ed.2d 819 (2007) (where tort claims are brought against a federal employee, U.S. Attorney General’s certification that employee acted within the scope of his employment requires that the employee be dismissed from the action, the…