Celestine v. Veterans Admin. Hosp., 83-2511

Decision Date26 October 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83-2511,83-2511
Citation746 F.2d 1360
PartiesKenneth L. CELESTINE, Appellant, v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Linda K. Davis, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.

Larry D. Coleman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Kenneth L. Celestine brought this action pro se against the Veterans Administration. His handwritten complaint alleged that he had been mistreated by employees of the Veterans Administration (VA), an agency of the United States. The District Court, interpreting the complaint as an attempt to allege a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 2671 et seq., dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding that plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies by filing an administrative claim with the VA and then filing suit within six months after written denial of the claim. In fact, but unknown to the District Court, plaintiff had filed such a claim with the VA, and it had been denied in writing, before the Court ruled favorably on the government's motion to dismiss. We hold that the government should have notified the District Court of this crucial change in circumstances, which destroyed the basis for the motion to dismiss. We vacate the decision below and remand for further proceedings on Celestine's claim.

When plaintiff initially filed his complaint, it was subject to the objection, made by the government in its motion to dismiss, that administrative remedies had not been exhausted. Exhaustion of these remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the maintenance of an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and absent such exhaustion the sovereign immunity of the United States from suit is not waived. 1 Smith v. United States, 588 F.2d 1209, 1211 (8th Cir.1978). The government was therefore within its rights when, about two months after the complaint was filed, it moved to dismiss. If the District Court had acted on the motion at that time, there would have been no error. The Court did not act, however, until about eighteen months later, at which time the state of affairs had changed. By that time the plaintiff had filed an administrative claim with the VA, and it had been denied in writing. Neither the plaintiff nor the government informed the District Court of this fact. The Court, therefore, can hardly be faulted for the action it took.

The government urges us to affirm, contending that it was plaintiff's duty to establish jurisdiction by informing the District Court of the fact that he had filed a claim and had received from the VA a denial of the claim in writing. No doubt the plaintiff should have conveyed this information to the Court, though, as a party acting without counsel, we can understand his failure to do so. But we cannot agree that the change in circumstances should now be ignored. It is the duty of the United States and its attorneys, when engaged in litigation or, indeed, in any dealings with citizens, not just to win a case, but to see that justice is done.

The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, ... is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 633, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935). The government had filed a motion to dismiss representing that administrative remedies had not been exhausted. When this state of affairs later changed, the government obviously knew it, because its own agency had denied Celestine's administrative claim. This information should have been conveyed by the VA to the United States Attorney, and by him, in turn, to the District Court.

The Assistant United States Attorney handling the case was himself unaware that an administrative claim had been filed and denied. That does not alter the legal fact that the United States is a collective entity, as well as a sovereign one, and that the knowledge of the employees of the Veterans Administration who denied Celestine's claim is, under the circumstances of this case, fairly imputable, as a matter of law, to government counsel representing the VA in court. It is fair to assume, in most contexts, that lawyers know what their clients know, and this is especially true when the client is the United States, which, as just noted, has a duty to deal fairly with opposing litigants.

The government's motion to dismiss was a continuing representation of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • L.I. Head Start Child Dev. V. Economic Opportunity, CV 00-7394(ADS).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • June 3, 2008
    ...or should know it ...") (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 9(3) (1958; emphasis added)). See also Celestine v. Veteran's Administration Hospital, 746 F.2d 1360, 1362 (8th Cir.1984) ("It is fair to assume, in most contexts, that lawyers know what their clients know ..."); Chira v. Lock......
  • Rawers v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • August 7, 2020
    ...Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 & n.3 (1990). See Burnett v. N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co., 380 U.S. 424, 425 (1965). Cf. Celestine v. Veterans Admin. Hosp., 746 F.2d 1360, 1363 (8th Cir. 1984)(agreeing with other courts that "when the plaintiff files an administrative claim after filing in district court, ......
  • Rawers v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • September 23, 2020
    ...435 (1990). See Burnett v. N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co., 380 U.S. 424, 425, 85 S.Ct. 1050, 13 L.Ed.2d 941 (1965). Cf. Celestine v. Veterans Admin. Hosp., 746 F.2d 1360, 1363 (8th Cir. 1984) (agreeing with other courts that "when the plaintiff files an administrative claim after filing in district co......
  • Gardner v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1988
    ...1092, 1098 (3d Cir.1978), rev'd on other grounds 444 U.S. 111, 100 S.Ct. 352, 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979); see also Celestine v. Veterans Admin. Hosp., 746 F.2d 1360 (8th Cir.1984); Campbell v. United States, 534 F.Supp. 762 (D.Haw.1982). The rationale for that approach is that "[t]o hold that re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT