Charles Bradford v. U.S. Dept of Agriculture, et a, No. 14-31239 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-31239 Document: 00513077033 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-31239 Summary Calendar CHARLES H. BRADFORD, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 12, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff–Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT (USDA), Formerly Known as Farmers Home Administration; ROBERT THOMAS KNIGHT; MIKE TUBBS, Civil Division, Morehouse Parish Sheriff's Office; STEPHEN KATZ; BUDDY CALDWELL, Attorney General, State of Louisiana; ROBERT KNIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C.; UNOPEN SUCCESSION OF AZZETT J. MATTHEW AND EVELYN M. BRADFORD; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendants–Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:14-CV-496 Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Charles Bradford appeals a dismissal for want of subject-matter Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 14-31239 Document: 00513077033 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2015 No. 14-31239 jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Proceeding pro se, he sued a number of state and federal parties, alleging generally that he retains an interest in property on which the United States earlier foreclosed in state court. In the district court and on appeal, Bradford cites jurisdictional statutes that he claims entitle him to seek relief in federal court, but none is applicable. 1 Bradford first relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1347, which grants jurisdiction over cases in which a tenant in common with the United States seeks partition. This is not a partition suit, and Bradford does not assert that he is a tenant in common with the government, so this cannot be a basis for jurisdiction. He also cites 28 U.S.C. § 2410, which grants federal jurisdiction in cases involving land on which the United States has a lien or mortgage. But as the magistrate judge observed, the foreclosure proceedings were final before this suit, so the United States no longer holds any lien or mortgage on the land at issue. Consequently, § 2410 is no basis for jurisdiction. 2 Because Bradford has not shown that the district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction, 3 the judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED. Ballew v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 668 F.3d 777, 781 (5th Cir. 2012) (“We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) de novo.”). 1 Bradford also cites 16 U.S.C. § 282c as a jurisdictional source. That statute authorizes appropriations for the federal government to purchase park land in Washington and is not a jurisdictional grant. The court cannot discern any other jurisdictional statute that Bradford might have intended with this citation. 2 3 Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (2001). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
