Restatement (2d) of Torts, § 314A(4) (quotation omitted)). 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. See Miller v. United States, 710 F.2d 656, 662 (10th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury holding plaintiff bears the burden of proving the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider ftca claim holding that employer bears the burden of proving applicability of flsa exemptions holding that the government bears the burden of proving voluntary consent under the totality of the circumstances holding defendant bears the burden of proving an accord and satisfaction defense