Allen v. U.S., 75-1220
| Decision Date | 09 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1220,75-1220 |
| Parties | Coy ALLEN and Esther Allen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
William J. Hamann, Canton, Ohio, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Frederick M. Coleman, Fred J. Guzzo, U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, Irving Jaffe, Morton Hollander, Karen K. Siegel, Civ. Div., Appellate Section, Dept. of Justice, William Kanter, Larry R. O'Neal, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee.
Before MILLER and ENGEL, Circuit Judges and O'SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
On April 18, 1969, plaintiff Coy Allen was driving near Louisville, Ohio when his car collided with a vehicle driven by a United States Postal Service employee. Allen suffered personal injuries as well as injury to his car from the accident. On April 15, 1971, Allen filed Standard Form 95, the official form for presenting a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, with the Post Office Department in Canton, Ohio. The form listed property damages as $296.13, and the spaces for "personal injury" and "total" were left blank. Attached to the claim was a statement which itemized the personal property and expenses which made up the $296.13. In addition, Allen stated therein: "Due to the time limits involved here, we are unable to get clearance from the doctors involved to get the entire claim filed properly."
While Allen's April 15, 1971 "claim" was still pending, he submitted a second Standard Form 95 on July 23, 1973, again listing property damages of $296.13, personal injury of $10,000, and a total of $10,296.13. On November 19 1973, the Postal Service denied plaintiff's claim because of untimely filing.
On January 9, 1974, Allen and his wife filed this suit in the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), Coy Allen claiming damages for the personal injuries he suffered in the accident and Esther Allen claiming damages for the loss of consortium, companionship and support resulting from the injuries her husband suffered. 1 On motion of the government, the district court ruled it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims of the plaintiffs because the plaintiffs had failed to comply with the jurisdictional prerequisites contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). We affirm.
28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) 2 provides that a tort claim against the United States is barred unless it is presented to the appropriate federal agency within two years after such claim accrues or unless an action is begun within six months after an agency has denied the claim presented. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) 3 deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction over any such cause of action unless the claim has been properly presented to the appropriate federal agency and denied by that agency. The failure by the agency to act within six months on the claim is deemed equivalent to a denial.
The Department of Justice has promulgated regulations prescribing the manner of presenting an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 C.F.R. 14.2(a) 4 provides that a claim is deemed to be presented when an executed Standard Form 95 is received accompanied by a claim for money damages in a sum certain. This court has held that 28 C.F.R. 14.2(a) is a valid regulation. Ianni v. United States, 457 F.2d 804 (6th Cir. 1972), see also Caton v. United States, 495 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1974).
The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the cause of action because Coy Allen had failed to submit a proper administrative claim to the Postal Service as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). With regard to the Standard Form 95 submitted on April 15, 1971, within the two year period, the court ruled that this did not qualify as a "claim" because it failed to state a sum certain demanded as damages.
We agree with the district court that the Standard Form 95 submitted on April 15, 1971 by Allen cannot be considered a valid claim because of plaintiff's failure to state a demand for a sum certain on the form. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. United States
...August, 1975.2 An administrative claim filed without a sum certain is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the courts. Allen v. United States, 517 F.2d 1328 (6th Cir.). Such a claim is a nullity and does not toll the running of the statute. Avril v. United States, 461 F.2d 1090 (9th Cir.)......
-
Founding Church of Scientology v. DIRECTOR, ETC.
...cases have been dismissed for failure of the claimant to state a sum certain in his or her administrative claim. See Allen v. United States, 517 F.2d 1328 (6th Cir. 1975); Caton v. United States, 495 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1974). The reason for the sum certain requirement is that if the agency ......
-
Lunsford v. U.S.
...been dismissed for failure of the individual claimant to state a sum certain in his administrative claim. See, e. g., Allen v. United States, 517 F.2d 1328 (6th Cir. 1975); Caton v. United States, supra; Melo v. United States, supra; Bialowas v. United States, The plaintiffs argue that tech......
-
Mader v. U.S.
...v. United States, 30 F.3d 514, 516 (4th Cir.1994); Price v. United States, 69 F.3d 46, 54 (5th Cir.1995); Allen v. United States, 517 F.2d 1328, 1329 (6th Cir.1975) (per curiam); Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir.1992); Nero v. Cherokee Nation of Okla., 892 F.2d 1457, 1463......