Landis v. United States, Civ. No. 71-735Y.
| Citation | 335 F. Supp. 1321 |
| Decision Date | 18 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 71-735Y. |
| Parties | Margaret M. LANDIS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Robert Disbro, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.
Donald Jaffe, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fred Coleman, U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, for the United States.
The United States has moved to dismiss this complaint for want of jurisdiction and because the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations. This complaint was filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq. The accident in question allegedly occurred on August 26, 1969, and suit was filed on July 23, 1971.
Section 2675(a) of Title 28 requires that an administrative claim be first filed as a prerequisite before this Court may exercise its jurisdiction. It provides, inter alia; An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages . . . unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate federal agency. . . . The government contends that in order to satisfy the above requirement the plaintiff should use the Government's Standard Form 95 (Claim for Personal Injury or Property Damage). There is no requirement that any specific form be used, but the plaintiff is required to present her claim in whatever form to the appropriate agency within the time allotted.
Plaintiff filed a claim against the Post Office in which she alleged that she suffered personal injuries caused by the negligence of the Post Office Department in Youngstown, Ohio. However, she does not allege the amount of her monetary claim. Section 2675(b) provides that suit cannot "be instituted for any sum in excess of the amount of the claim presented to the federal agency. . . ." In the case at bar, since no monetary claim was made there is no way of determining whether the prayer on the complaint ($25,000.00) is in excess of the administrative claim.
The plaintiff relies on Whealton v. United States, 271 F.Supp. 770 (E.D. Va.1962), in that she claims it stands for the proposition that no specific form is required. This is correct as far as it goes. At the time of Whealton, Section 2401(b) did not require an administrative claim for all claims as a prerequisite to the institution of a suit. However, Section 2401(b) was amended in 1966 to require that all claims be submitted to the appropriate agency before resort would be had to the federal courts. This amendment applies directly to this case, while it did not apply to Whealton, 271 F.Supp. at 772, footnote 1 (E.D.Va.1967).
Since no monetary claim has been filed, this Court must decide whether plaintiff's letter of December 10, 1969, complies with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richland-Lexington Airport v. Atlas Properties
...complaining of injury are "notice of some sort, they ... cannot be classified as an administrative claim," Landis v. United States, 335 F.Supp. 1321, 1322 (N.D.Ohio 1972). To satisfy § 2675(a), therefore, more than a generalized expression of aggrievement is required. Rather, a claimant mus......
-
Miller v. United States, 4-76-Civ. 12.
...States, 461 F.2d 1090, 1091 (9th Cir. 1972); Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1050 (3d Cir. 1971); Landis v. United States, 335 F.Supp. 1321, 1322-23 (N.D.Ohio 1972); Jordan v. United States, 333 F.Supp. 987, 990 (E.D.Pa.1971), aff'd without opinion, 474 F.2d 1340 (3d Cir. 1973); D......
-
Mudlo v. United States
...sought is not a claim. Driggers v. United States, 309 F.Supp. 1377 (D.S.C., 1970); Bialowas v. United States, supra; Landis v. United States, supra 335 F.Supp. 1321, D.C.Ohio. In this case, there was no definite amount claimed for personal injuries, and no medical records or bills to suppor......
-
Benitez v. Presbiterian Hospital
...1373 (W.D.Pa., 1976); Bialowas v. United States, supra; Driggers v. United States, 309 F.Supp. 1377 (D.S.C., 1970); Landis v. United States, 335 F.Supp. 1321 (D.C.Ohio, 1972). In conclusion, since a proper administrative claim was not filed within the period of the applicable statute of lim......