context: The district court dismissed Pappas' complaint not because there is no Oklahoma duty to use reasonable care with persons in custody, but because Pappas did not demonstrate that conduct by a private person akin to that alleged in his complaint would constitute a violation of the duty of care under Oklahoma law. Pappas argues the district court failed to identify any Oklahoma state law that would bar his claim, but the court was under no obligation to do so. As the party averring jurisdiction, Pappas -- the FTCA plaintiff -- bears the burden of proof to establish' that ' the court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction based upon analogous Oklahoma private liability.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 710 F.2d 656, 662
citation_a.parenthetical: holding plaintiff bears the burden of proving the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider FTCA claim
citation_a.sentence: See Miller v. United States, 710 F.2d 656, 662 (10th Cir.1983) (holding plaintiff bears the burden of proving the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider FTCA claim); see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) (holding the law presumes that a cause lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts and “the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 511 U.S. 375, 377
citation_b.parenthetical: holding the law presumes that a cause lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts and "the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction"
citation_b.sentence: See Miller v. United States, 710 F.2d 656, 662 (10th Cir.1983) (holding plaintiff bears the burden of proving the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider FTCA claim); see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) (holding the law presumes that a cause lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts and “the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction”).