Arbour v. Jenkins, Civ. A. No. 88-CV-70380-DT.
Decision Date | 26 May 1989 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 88-CV-70380-DT. |
Citation | 713 F. Supp. 229 |
Parties | Sheila ARBOUR, Representative and Wife of the Decedent, Victor E. Arbour, Plaintiff, v. Eugene JENKINS, J.T. Smith, Edward Novak, Charles Kehoe, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Lance A. Fertig, Birmingham, Mich., for plaintiff.
Karl Overman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for defendants.
Plaintiff Sheila Arbour, on behalf of the estate of Victor Arbour, a former postal employee, brought this lawsuit (thereafter removed from state court) asserting job-related, common law tort claims against the named defendants, postal employees and Victor Arbour's superiors. On January 6, 1989, then U.S. Attorney Roy C. Hayes, as designee for the Attorney General, certified in writing to the Court that, in connection with plaintiff's claims, defendants had acted "within the scope of their employment as employees of the United States...." Accordingly, the United States presently moves to be substituted as the party defendant, in lieu of the named defendants, and for dismissal of this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679, as amended by the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, Pub.L. 100-694, 102 Stat. 4564 (1988) (hereafter "Act"). Plaintiff opposes such motions and, in turn, has filed a motion to compel discovery.
The Act provides in relevant part:
28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1). Finally, the Act indicates:
Upon certification, any action or proceeding subject to subsection (d) (1), (2), or (3) shall proceed in the same manner as any action against the United States filed pursuant to section 1346(b) of this title and shall be subject to the limitations and exceptions applicable to those actions.
One applicable limitation reads, in part:
An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail.
28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). In this case it is undisputed that the claims now before the Court were not presented to the appropriate agency and, necessarily, were not administratively denied.
In short, the plain language of the various provisions quoted above leads the Court to conclude that as a matter of law, plaintiff's remedy if any, is against the United States pursuant to the procedures prescribed in the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., including the unfulfilled requirement that she exhaust administrative remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).1 Plaintiff's contention does not counsel otherwise.
In essence, plaintiff does not adopt a contrary construction of the pertinent statutory provisions; rather, she...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Petrousky v. US
...717 F.Supp. 824 (S.D.Fla.1989); Assaad-Faltas v. Griffin, 715 F.Supp. 247, amending, 708 F.Supp. 1035 (E.D.Ark.1989); Arbour v. Jenkins, 713 F.Supp. 229 (E.D.Mich.1989); cf. Martin v. Merriday, 706 F.Supp. 42 (N.D.Ga. 1989). Without notification of the reasons for the government's about-fac......
-
Nadler v. Mann
...have denied judicial review. See S.J. and W. Ranch, Inc. v. Lehtinen, 717 F.Supp. 824 (S.D.Fla.1989) (Gonzalez, J.); Arbour v. Jenkins, 713 F.Supp. 229 (E.D. Mich.1989); Mitchell v. United States, 709 F.Supp. 767, 768 n. 4 (W.D.Tex.1989). Others have granted it. See Baggio v. Lombardi, 726 ......
-
Arbour v. Jenkins
...On May 26, 1989, the district court granted the government's motion to substitute the United States as the proper defendant. 713 F.Supp. 229. The district court thereafter dismissed the suit for appellant's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court observed that "the pl......
-
EGAN BY EGAN v. US
...to the State court. Some courts have reached a similar result. E.g., Aviles v. Lutz, 887 F.2d 1046 (10th Cir.1989); Arbour v. Jenkins, 713 F.Supp. 229 (E.D.Mich.1989); Assaad-Faltas v. Griffin, 715 F.Supp. 247 (E.D.Ark. 1989); S.J. and W. Ranch, Inc. v. Lehtinen, 717 F.Supp. 824 (S.D.Fla.19......