28 U.S.C. § 1402

United States as defendant

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any civil action in a district court against the United States under subsection (a) of section 1346 of this title may be prosecuted only:(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides;(2) In the case of a civil action by a corporation under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of section 1346, in the judicial district in which is located the principal place of business or principal office or agency of the corporation; or if it has no principal place of business or principal office or agency in any judicial district (A) in the judicial district in which is located the office to which was made the return of the tax in respect of which the claim is made, or (B) if no return was made, in the judicial district in which lies the District of Columbia. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this paragraph a district court, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, may transfer any such action to any other district or division.(b) Any civil action on a tort claim against the United States under subsection (b) of section 1346 of this title may be prosecuted only in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or wherein the act or omission complained of occurred.(c) Any civil action against the United States under subsection (e) of section 1346 of this title may be prosecuted only in the judicial district where the property is situated at the time of levy, or if no levy is made, in the judicial district in which the event occurred which gave rise to the cause of action.(d) Any civil action under section 2409a to quiet title to an estate or interest in real property in which an interest is claimed by the United States shall be brought in the district court of the district where the property is located or, if located in different districts, in any of such districts.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 937; Pub. L. 85–920, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1770; Pub. L. 89–719, title II, § 202(b), Nov. 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 1149; Pub. L. 92–562, § 2, Oct. 25, 1972, 86 Stat. 1176; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 131, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 39.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 762, 931(a) (Mar. 3, 1887, ch. 359, § 5, 24 Stat. 506; Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, § 410(a), 60 Stat. 843).

Section consolidates the venue provisions of section 762 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with the venue provisions of section 931(a) of such title, the latter provisions relating to tort claims cases. The jurisdictional provisions of such section 931(a) are incorporated in section 1346(b) of this title. For other provisions thereof, see Distribution Table.

Provisions of section 762 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to the verification and contents of a petition filed against the United States were omitted as unnecessary. Section 265 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relative to the petition in cases filed in the Court of Claims was also omitted from the revised title. (See, also, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.)

Words “civil action” were substituted for “suit” in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1982—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97–164 inserted “in a district court” after “civil action” in introductory provisions preceding par. (1). The phrase “civil action” also appeared in par. (2), but no change was made to reflect the probable intent of Congress as indicated on page 79 of House Report No. 97–312.

1972—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 92–562 added subsec. (d).

1966—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 89–719 added subsec. (c).

1958—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85–920 provided for venue and change of venue in tax refund suits by corporation.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Effective Date of 1966 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 89–719 applicable after Nov. 2, 1966, see section 203 of Pub. L. 89–719, set out as a note under section 1346 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 542 cases (142 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Block v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Block v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (1983). · cites it 2× “§ 1346 (f), and 28 U. S. C. § 1402 (d). The provision relevant to the present case, 28 U.”

Martin John Beattie v. United States, 756 F.2d 91 (D.C. Cir. 1984). · cites it 4× “Venue Venue of cases under the FTC A is governed by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1402 , which provides that any such “civil action on a tort claim against the United States .”

Melvin D. Reuber v. United States of Am. (Two Cases.) Melvin D. Reuber v. Food Chem. News (Two Cases.), 750 F.2d 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “28 U.S.C. § 1402 (b). The district court held that venue was improper since “plaintiffs tort claim against the United States occurred in Maryland.”

Scheafnocker v. Comm'r, 642 F.3d 428 (3rd Cir. 2011). · cites it 6× “The merits of this action shall be adjudicated in the appropriate district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1402 (c). This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.”

Caremark Therapeutic Servs. v. Leavitt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). · cites it 6× “§ 1398 ; actions against the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1402 ; and a seaman’s action for recovery for personal injury, 46 U.”

Moler v. Wells, 18 F.4th 162 (5th Cir. 2021). · cites it 4× “” 28 U.S.C. § 1402 (b). Moler’s complaint and the exhibits attached to it1 allege that Moler was inappropriately denied medical care after injuring his arm while incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute in Oakdale, Louisiana (FCI-O).”

Sanchez Ex Rel. Rivera-Sanchez v. United States, 600 F. Supp. 2d 19 (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 4× “Legal Standard for Venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1402 (b) and for Transfer to Pursuant to 28 U.”

Bartel v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 617 F. Supp. 190 (D.D.C. 1985). · cites it 5× “The FTCA Claim Venue as to plaintiff’s Federal Tort Claims Act claim is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1402 (b), the general venue statute governing suits in which the United States is a defendant.”

Spotts v. United States, 562 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 5× “In an action brought under the FTCA, venue is covered by 28 U.S.C. § 1402 (b), which provides: Any civil action on a tort claim against the United States under subsection (b) of section 1346 of this title may be prosecuted only in the judicial district where the plaintiff…”

Norma Williams v. United States, 704 F.2d 1222 (11th Cir. 1983). · cites it 5× “The court held that pursuant to section 7429(e) of the Internal Revenue Code and 28 U.S.C. § 1402 (a)(1), Williams failed to establish venue in the Southern District of Florida.”

Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197 (1993). · cites it 2× “To hold otherwise, the Court of Appeals stated, would render two other provisions of the FTCA, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1402 (b), 1346(b), nonsensical.”

Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1 (1962). · cites it 2× “Because the venue provision of the Act also contains the words “wherein the act or omission complained of occurred” ( 28 U. S. C. § 1402 (b)), American contends that the reference to the place where the injury occurred should control the meaning of the “act or omission” language…”

Show all 542 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 1402(a) — 4 cases

Saraco v. Hallett, 831 F. Supp. 1154 (E.D. Pa. 1993).

Kent B. Diehl, Sr., Beth Koehler Diehl, Individually, Etc. v. United States, 438 F.2d 705 (5th Cir. 1971).

Van Buskirk v. United States, 206 F. Supp. 553 (E.D. Tenn. 1962).

Mid-Am. Indus., Inc. v. United States, 341 F. Supp. 597 (W.D. Ark. 1972).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1402(a)(1) — 1 case

Norma Williams v. United States, 704 F.2d 1222 (11th Cir. 1983). “The court held that pursuant to section 7429(e) of the Internal Revenue Code and 28 U.S.C. § 1402 (a)(1), Williams failed to establish venue in the Southern District of Florida.”

— 28 U.S.C. § 1402(a)(2) — 1 case

Hemmings v. United States, 842 F. Supp. 935 (S.D. Tex. 1993).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b) — 8 cases

United States Lines, Inc. v. United States, 470 F.2d 487 (5th Cir. 1972).

Popkin v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 204 F. Supp. 426 (E.D. Pa. 1962).

Moler v. Wells (W.D. La. 2022).

Casanova v. Brooklyn Metro. Det. Ctr. (E.D.N.Y 2019).

White v. United States (M.D. Penn. 2021).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.