Henderson v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 27 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 84-1476,84-1554,s. 84-1476 |
| Citation | 785 F.2d 121 |
| Parties | Anna Mae R. HENDERSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Anne Marie HENDERSON, by her Guardian Ad Litem, Anna Marie R. HENDERSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Arnold S. Goodstein (Diane Schafer Goodstein, on brief), for appellant.
Robert H. Bickerton, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Henry Dargan McMaster, U.S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before WIDENER, ERVIN and SNEEDEN, Circuit Judges.
In this Federal Tort Claims Act case, appellants 1 contest the lower court's dismissal of their suits for failure to timely file an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency. We agree that appellants did not file an administrative claim within the period required by law. The decision below will therefore be affirmed.
On March 14, 1980, the plaintiff-appellants ["appellants"] were injured when the car in which they were riding was struck by a car being driven by a substitute rural mail carrier employed by the United States Postal Service. 2 Appellants admit that the accident report listed the government as a special use for the car with which they collided. 3
The appellants both filed suit against the other vehicle's driver in South Carolina state court on December 9, 1980. On December 30, 1980, the United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina certified that the substitute rural carrier was a United States employee acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident. Thereafter, an Assistant United States attorney sent the appellants' lawyer a letter confirming a recent telephone conversation in which she advised the lawyer that, since the carrier was a federal employee, the state court suits were in reality against the United States. 4 The letter further stated that before a suit may be brought against the government, a claim must be filed with the proper administrative agency. The letter also confirmed an understanding that the appellants' attorney would dismiss the suits in state court. Finally, the letter contained a warning that, if the state actions were not dismissed, government attorneys would remove the cases to federal court and seek a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The government's warning went unheeded. The state actions were not dismissed. As promised, the suits were removed to federal court where the government moved for a dismissal based on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. A federal magistrate ruled that the suits were improperly filed before administrative remedies were exhausted. 5 The actions were dismissed. No appeals ensued. 6
The United States Postal Service subsequently received administrative claims from the appellants. The claims were received on July 6, 1982--more than 27 months after the date of the accident. The Postal Service denied the claims because they were not timely filed. 7 Thereafter, on April 5, 1983, appellants filed suit in federal court seeking damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The government objected that the suits were improper because the administrative claims were not filed within two years of the date of the car crash and because the appellants had not filed suit within six months after denial of the administrative claims. 8 Subsequently, the district court dismissed the actions.
Appellants contend the dismissal of their claims was improper. On appeal, they argue that by filing their complaints in state court they satisfied the statutory requirement of filing an administrative claim with the Postal Service. Since their state suits were filed within two years of the accident, they argue that their administrative filings were timely. In the alternative, they argue that their administrative claim filings were timely because their cause of action did not accrue on the date of the accident but on the date that they learned the mail driver was a federal employee acting within the scope of her employment. Finally, they argue that their suits were timely because the Postal Service's August 25, 1982 letter advising them that their claims were not timely filed did not constitute a final denial of their claim. 9
Plaintiffs must meet certain prerequisites before filing an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") in federal court. The FTCA clearly provides that, prior to bringing an action against the United States, a claimant "shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2675(a). It is well-settled that the requirement of filing an administrative claim is jurisdictional and may not be waived. Kielwien v. United States, 540 F.2d 676, 679 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 979, 97 S.Ct. 491, 50 L.Ed.2d 588 (1976).
The time requirements for the filing of an administrative claim and the commencement of a civil suit are set forth in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2401. That section provides that a claim must be "presented in writing to the appropriate federal agency within two years after such claim accrues" and that a civil action must be commenced within six months after the final denial of the claim by the agency. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2401(b) (emphasis added). Three of the four cases relied on by the appellants support the proposition that some form of written notification, plus a claim for a sum certain, must be received by the agency from the claimants. In each case, some type of claim was presented by the claimant to the agency in a timely fashion. 10 None of these cases, however, lends any support to the plaintiff's contention that the filing of a state court action satisfies the requirement of filing an administrative claim. The weight of the case law clearly supports the government's position that the filing of a suit does not provide sufficient notice to the federal agency. Particularly pertinent to this appeal are decisions by the Eighth and Sixth Circuits. See Meeker v. United States, 435 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir.1970); Rogers v. United States, 675 F.2d 123 (6th Cir.1982).
In Meeker, as in the case before us, the plaintiff initially filed suit in state court against the individual government employee. There too the government removed the action to federal court, certified that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and sought to dismiss because of plaintiff's failure to timely file an administrative claim. The Eighth Circuit dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff could not circumvent the statutory requirement of filing an administrative claim by commencing action in state court against an individual employee. In so doing, the court specifically stated that "[t]he mere filing of a suit does not meet the requirement of Sec. 2675(a) of first presenting a claim to the appropriate federal agency." 435 F.2d at 1221.
The facts of Meeker are analogous to the facts of the case at hand. The plaintiff in Meeker, however, made a somewhat different argument concerning his failure to file an administrative claim. In Meeker, the plaintiff contended that he was not required to file an administrative claim because he was proceeding against the individual employee rather than the government. In the case now before us the plaintiff-appellants contend that, although they were required to file a claim, that requirement was satisfied by the filing of a state court suit against the individual employee. This is a distinction without a difference. The result of accepting either argument would be the same--plaintiffs would be allowed to proceed to the merits of their claims in federal court without first having timely filed an administrative claim.
We agree with the court in Meeker that dismissal is mandatory when a plaintiff fails to file a claim with the proper administrative agency:
To hold otherwise would afford a claimant the choice of either pursuing administrative remedies or of filing suit against the individual employee. Congressional intent in enacting the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies, as evidenced by the legislative history of the 1966 amendment, was to improve and expedite disposition of monetary claims against the Government by establishing a system for prelitigation settlement, to enable consideration of claims by the agency having the best information concerning the incident, and to ease court congestion and avoid unnecessary litigation ... [I]f, as appellant urges, a claimant could forego agency consideration of a tort claim by the simple expedient of initiating an action against the individual employee in a state court, the effect which the amendment was intended to accomplish would be completely frustrated.
Similarly, in Rogers v. United States, 675 F.2d 123 (6th Cir.1982), the plaintiff initially filed suit in state court against the individual employee. The government subsequently removed the case to federal court and certified that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment. The plaintiff argued that he did not know the employee was acting within the scope of his employment and, in the alternative, that there was no requirement of filing an administrative claim where the plaintiff proceeds against the individual employee and the government substitutes itself as a party. 675 F.2d at 124. The court rejected both arguments and dismissed for failure to timely file an administrative claim. Id.
Again, although the plaintiff in Rogers made a somewhat different argument to justify his failure to file a claim, the dismissal of the suit in Rogers strongly suggests a similar result here. 11 Furthermore, even if Meeker and Rogers could be convincingly distinguished, which we are unable to do, there are numerous factually analogous district court cases in which suits were dismissed for failure to timely file administrative claims. 12
Finally, we are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richland-Lexington Airport v. Atlas Properties
...of New Jersey, 879 F.2d 1186, 1194 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 937, 110 S.Ct. 332, 107 L.Ed.2d 322 (1989); Henderson v. United States, 785 F.2d 121, 123 (4th Cir.1986); Keene Corp., 700 F.2d at 841. Thus, "noncompliance with section 2675 deprives a claimant of federal court jurisdicti......
-
Nelson v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
...under the Federal Tort Claims Act." Kokotis v. United States Postal Service, 223 F.3d 275, 278 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Henderson v. U.S., 785 F.2d 121, 123 (4th Cir. 1986)). When the plaintiff has failed to submit an administrative claim to the agency as required under the FTCA, the Court l......
-
Jacobus v. Huerta
...complying with the mandatory prerequisites, the district court must dismiss the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction. Henderson v. United States, 785 F.2d 121, 123 (4th Cir. 1986). ("[T]he requirement of filing an administrative claim is jurisdictional and may not be waived."); See also Xiteng ......
-
Toran v. Coakley
...claim is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. Ahmed v. United States, 30 F.3d 514, 516 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Henderson v. United States, 785 F.2d 121, 123 (4th Cir. 1986); Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 1993); Gibbs v. United States, 34 F.Supp.2d 405 (S.D.W.Va. 1999). Thus, b......