Carr v. Veterans Admin.
| Decision Date | 14 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-3146,74-3146 |
| Citation | 522 F.2d 1355 |
| Parties | Texie G. CARR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, and J. G. Thompson, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
L. Breland Hilburn, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., Joseph E. Brown, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before COLEMAN and GEE, Circuit Judges, and COX, District Judge.
This is a sad but simple case. Texie Carr filed an administrative tort claim, alleging medical malpractice, with the Veterans Administration. This claim was denied, and notice of final denial was mailed to Miss Carr's attorney on February 5, 1973. 1 Miss Carr filed her complaint appealing this adverse decision on July 27, 1973, naming the Veterans Administration and Dr. Thompson as defendants. On July 30, the U. S. Marshal was provided with the necessary forms for service of process. On August 7, he served the named defendants and the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi and mailed a copy of service to the United States Attorney General. The named defendants responded with a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and appellant moved to amend the complaint to add the United States as a party. In a ruling which appellant does not dispute, the district court granted the named defendants' motion to dismiss because the United States is the proper defendant. She objects, however, to the district court's denying leave to add the United States as a defendant.
The issues on appeal involve the intersection of this fact pattern and the applicable statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). 2 Since no effort was made to name the United States as a defendant until many months later, in April 1974, the motion to amend was properly denied on the authority of the statute of limitations unless appellant can employ the "relation back" provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). 3 Appellant advances three independent arguments to support her position that relation back is proper. They are: (1) the statute of limitations did not commence running until she received the notice of denial, apparently on February 9, 1973; (2) the six-month period is extended by three days, under the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(e), 4 because its commencement is triggered by a mailing; and (3) delivery of process to the U. S. Marshal was timely constructive notice to the United States. The thrust of the first two contentions is that service on the U. S. Attorney and the Attorney General on August 7 was timely notice to the United States; the third contention asserts that the United States received notice on July 30. We must reject all three arguments.
While it might be more equitable if the short period of limitations provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) commenced with receipt by the claimant of notice of the administrative agency's denial of the claim, the plain words of the statute defeat appellant's first argument. These specify that an action be begun within six months after the "date of mailing," and adherence to the statutory language is particularly necessary in a case such as this because the waiver of sovereign immunity embodied in this statute must be strictly construed. See Childers v. United States, 442 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 857, 92 S.Ct. 104, 30 L.Ed.2d 99 (1971). Limitations began to run on the date of mailing, February 5, and ran on August 6, 1973.
Appellant's second argument is considerably more sophisticated. While conceding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(e) cannot extend the jurisdictional period of the statute of limitations itself, she argues that the reference to the statutory period in Rule 15(c) as a measure of the time during which notice must be provided is not jurisdictional. Since the period during which she could provide notice to the United States commenced with the act of mailing the administrative denial of her claim, she contends that Rule 6(e) gives her three additional days until August 9 within which to notify the United States so as to permit relation back of the amendment.
Assuming arguendo that the reference in Rule 15(c) to the period of limitations is not jurisdictional, we reject appellant's argument because we hold that Rule 6(e) does not apply to modify the period during which notice must be given in this case. The prescribed period of limitations commences with the "date of mailing" and not with the "service of a notice or other paper" as required for Rule 6(e) to apply. Cf. Clements v. Florida East Coast Ry., 473 F.2d 668 (5th Cir. 1973); Army and Air Force Exchange Service v. Hanson, 250 F.Supp. 857 (D.Hawaii 1966). Our reluctance to deviate from the strict language of Rule 6(e) in the context of a suit against the government is supported by the probable purpose of Rule 6(e): to equalize the time for action available to parties served by mail with that afforded those served in person. This purpose is not relevant here where the period during which notice must be provided commences in the same way for all claimants. Our reluctance draws further support from the goal of the 1966 amendments to Rule 15(c), as reflected in the Advisory Committee's Note, 39 F.R.D. 82 (1966). The present language of Rule 15(c) is a reaction to a line of cases refusing to allow an amendment to relate back when a plaintiff sued and served one government entity within the period prescribed by statute and later attempted to substitute the proper entity as a defendant. Id. at 82-83. The Advisory Committee stressed that the government received notice of the claim "within the stated period," and it stated, "(r)elation back is intimately connected with the policy of the statute of limitations." Id. at 83. Nothing in the Advisory Committee's Note suggests an intention to allow relation back when no government entity received actual notice within the strict limitations period. See Martz v. Miller Bros. Co., 244 F.Supp. 246, 254 (D.Del.1965); 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1499 (1971); Note, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c): Relation Back of Amendments, 57 Minn.L.Rev. 83, 103-105 (1972).
Appellant's third...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manstream v. United States Dept. of Agriculture
...subject matter jurisdiction. Myers and Myers, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 527 F.2d 1252 (2nd Cir.1975); Carr v. Veterans Administration, 522 F.2d 1355 (5th Cir.1975); Crain v. Krehbiel, 443 F.Supp. 202, 215 (N.D.Calif.1977). The Manstreams have not alleged any independent basis fo......
-
Williams v. U.S. Postal Service
...to have been notified of the action within the limitations period to invoke relation back under Rule 15(c). Carr v. Veterans Administration, 522 F.2d 1355, 1358 (5th Cir.1975). Indeed, no one was served before November 23, 1985, and thus no individual's receipt of service can be considered ......
-
Jackson v. United States
...See Berti v. V.A. Hosp., 860 F.2d 338, 340 (9th Cir.1988) (declining to read a receipt requirement into the FTCA); Carr v. Veterans Admin., 522 F.2d 1355, 1357 (5th Cir.1975) (same). The FTCA requires only that the agency mail the denial by certified mail. This the agency did. An added rece......
-
Houston v. U.S. Postal Service
...(5th Cir.1981) (filing of suit within six months of administrative denial is a jurisdictional requirement); Carr v. Veterans Administration, 522 F.2d 1355, 1357 (5th Cir.1975) (stating that because it is a waiver of sovereign immunity, the six-month filing requirement must be followed stric......
-
Exploring Military Medical Malpractice Actions: the Federal Tort Claims Act
...28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). 8. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 through 2680, and 2402. 9. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); Carr v. Veteran's Administration, 522 F.2d 1355, 1357 (5th Cir. Circuit 1975). 10. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680. 11. Supra, note 3. 12. 178 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1949), rev'd sub nom. Feres, supra, no......