The Federal Tort Claims Act’s (FTCA) “judgment bar”; Whether the FTCA bar preluded plaintiff’s claim under Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed Bureau of Narcotics; Whether Harris v United States has been overruled by subsequent Supreme Court cases (Simmons v Himmelreich; Will v Hallock; Brownback v King)

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] On remand from the Supreme Court, the court held that Harris (in which the court held that the FTCA judgment bar applies to other claims brought in the same action, including claims brought under Bivens) has not been overruled by later Supreme Court precedent. Thus, it affirmed the district court’s order dismissing plaintiff-King’s remaining claims. After the FBI mistakenly arrested King, who was acquitted of all charges, he filed suit, asserting a Bivens claim and a § 1983 claim against the agents who arrested him, defendants-Allen and Brownback, based on Fourth Amendment violations. He also brought an FTCA claim against the United States. The district court dismissed all the claims on the merits without addressing the FTCA judgment bar, which provides that a judgment on a FTCA claim completely bars any of a plaintiff’s other claims that are based on the same subject matter, brought against the government employee whose actions precipitated the claim. On appeal, the court had held that his Bivens claim was not precluded by the bar “‘because the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over” his FTCA claim, so that claim was not resolved on the merits and the judgment bar was not triggered. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the order dismissing the FTCA claim “‘went to the merits of the claim and thus could trigger the judgment bar[,] . . . where, as here, pleading a claim and pleading jurisdiction entirely overlap, a ruling that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction may simultaneously be a judgment on the merits that triggers the judgment bar.’” In a footnote, the Supreme Court discussed how the court should proceed on remand. It noted that “King had argued ‘that the judgment bar does not apply to a dismissal of claims raised in the same lawsuit.’” It declined to address the issue, leaving it to the Sixth Circuit to consider “whether the FTCA judgment bar applies to claims in the same lawsuit, which would require the dismissal of King’s remaining Bivens claim.” On remand, the court concluded that none of the three Supreme Court cases King cited overruled Harris. Because it concluded that Harris has not been overruled, it was compelled to affirm the district court’s dismissal of King’s remaining claims.