Baum v. USA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ROBERT BAUM,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00152-SLG
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at Docket 6. Plaintiff did
not file an opposition. Oral argument was not requested and was not necessary
to the Court’s decision. For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion
to dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Robert Baum, proceeding pro se, initiated this suit in May 2022 in
Alaska state court, naming U.S. District Judge Ralph R. Beistline as the defendant.
Mr. Baum’s suit alleges that Judge Beistline is liable to him for fraud. He seeks
over $100,000 in damages.1 The United States subsequently removed the case
to this Court.2
1 See Docket 1-1.
2 Docket 1.
Case 3:22-cv-00152-SLG Document 14 Filed 09/30/22 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 3:22-cv-00152-SLG, Baum v. United States
Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Page 2 of 4
The United States has moved to dismiss Mr. Baum’s suit for lack of
jurisdiction.3 Construing his suit as a fraud claim under the Federal Tort Claims
Act (FTCA), the United States asserts that Mr. Baum has failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies.4 It also asserts the defense of sovereign immunity.5
Mr. Baum has not directly responded to the United States’ motion.6 The
Court issued an order regarding the motion that directed Mr. Baum to respond
within 21 days with evidence and legal arguments opposing the United States’
assertions regarding the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction over his lawsuit.7
But Mr. Baum has not filed any response since the entry of that order.
LEGAL STANDARD
The term “subject matter jurisdiction” refers to a court’s “power to hear” a
specific category of case.8 The requirement that a federal court have subject
matter jurisdiction over a case can never be forfeited or waived.9
3 Docket 6.
4 Docket 6 at 3–5.
5 Docket 6 at 5–6.
6 Prior to the Court issuing this order, Mr. Baum did file a one-page handwritten letter with multiple
attachments as well as a filing entitled “Response to Motion for Notice of Removal.” Dockets 11,
12. Neither filing addressed the United States’ jurisdictional arguments raised in its motion to
dismiss. See Docket 12 at 32–33.
7 Docket 13.
8 Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent.
Region, 558 U.S. 67, 81 (2009) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)).
9 Id.
Case 3:22-cv-00152-SLG Document 14 Filed 09/30/22 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 3:22-cv-00152-SLG, Baum v. United States
Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Page 3 of 4
The United States has made a factual attach on the Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction by filing evidence that Mr. Baum had not exhausted his administrative
remedies.10 As previously explained to Mr. Baum, a plaintiff then “must furnish
affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing subject
matter jurisdiction.”11 “The plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that each of the requirements for subject-matter
jurisdiction has been met.”12
DISCUSSION
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Baum’s FTCA claim
against Judge Beistline. “The FTCA bars claimants from bringing suit in federal
court until they have exhausted their administrative remedies.”13 The Ninth Circuit
has “repeatedly held that the [FTCA’s] exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional in
nature and must be interpreted strictly.”14 In the present case, the United States
has provided clear evidence that Mr. Baum has not exhausted his administrative
remedies,15 and Mr. Baum has not refuted that evidence. Thus, the Court lacks
10 Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer,
373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004)); see also Docket 8 (Decl. of Tiffany Lewis).
11 Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039 (quoting Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d
1036, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also Docket 13.
12 Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014).
13 McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
14 Vacek v. U.S. Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006).
15 Docket 8.
Case 3:22-cv-00152-SLG Document 14 Filed 09/30/22 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 3:22-cv-00152-SLG, Baum v. United States
Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Page 4 of 4
subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Baum’s lawsuit against Judge Beistline. His
lawsuit must therefore be dismissed.16
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the United States’ motion to dismiss at Docket 6
is GRANTED. Mr. Baum’s Complaint at Docket 1 is DISMISSED. The Clerk of
Court is directed to enter a final judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 30th day of September, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16 The Court notes that even if Mr. Baum had exhausted his administrative remedies, the doctrine
of judicial immunity would still bar his claim against Judge Beistline. The FTCA statute specifies
that “the United States shall be entitled to assert any defense based upon judicial or legislative
immunity which otherwise would have been available to the employee of the United States whose
act or omission gave rise to the claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 2674. Under federal law, judges “are
absolutely immune from damage liability for acts performed in their official capacities.” Ashelman
v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). The Supreme Court has explained that “[a] judge
will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously,
or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in
the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 357 (1978) (quoting
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 351 (1871)). Judicial immunity must be “construed generously in
favor of the judge.” Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1076. Here, there is no indication that Judge Beistline
acted in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Therefore, any damages claim Mr. Baum brings
against Judge Beistline for his rulings in Mr. Baum’s civil case would be barred by absolute judicial
immunity.
Case 3:22-cv-00152-SLG Document 14 Filed 09/30/22 Page 4 of 4