88 F. App'x 199

Faye N. ALMAZAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 03-55093.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 3, 2004.

Decided Feb. 18, 2004.

Willie Jordan Curtis, Esq., University of Arizona, College of Law, Jill Sosin, University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, Sherry Janssen, Law Student, Nonnie Shivers, Law Student, Edwin Aguilar, Law Student, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Faye N. Almazan, Pro Se, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Cindy M. Cipriani, Esq., USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Because renewal of a contract is a discretionary function excluded from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Almazan’s claims to the extent they are premised on failure to renew her contract. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a); United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 322, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991); Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. United States, 139 F.3d 1280, 1283 (9th Cir. 1998).

To the extent that Almazan asserts claims premised on discrimination, those claims are time-barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). Lehman v. United States, 154 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir.1998); Parker v. United States, 935 F.2d 176, 177 (9th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.

Almazan v. United States
88 F. App'x 199

Case Details

Name
Almazan v. United States
Decision Date
Feb 18, 2004
Citations

88 F. App'x 199

Jurisdiction
United States

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!