Rogers v. U.S., 80-3685
| Decision Date | 15 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-3685,80-3685 |
| Citation | 675 F.2d 123 |
| Parties | Isaac ROGERS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
F. M. Apicella, F. M. Apicella & Associates, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.
Dale F. Kainski, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant-appellee.
Before KENNEDY and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and BALLANTINE, * District Judge.
This appeal presents the issue of whether the timely filing of an administrative claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suits under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), when an action is commenced in state court against a federal employee who was in the course of his employment, and removed by the United States, under 28 U.S.C. § 2679, to the district court.
Plaintiff, a postman, was injured when his car was struck by an automobile driven by another postman, Stennies. Plaintiff filed suit against Stennies in state court four days before the two-year Ohio statute of limitations expired. Two weeks after the suit was filed, plaintiff's counsel was advised that Stennies was in the course of his employment with the United States Postal Service when the accident occurred. The two-year period allowed by the Federal Tort Claims Act for filing an administrative claim had by then expired.
Some months later, the United States removed the case to the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2679. The United States then moved to substitute itself as defendant and to dismiss the action because plaintiff had not filed an administrative claim within the two-year limitations period. Defendant's motion was granted and plaintiff appealed.
Plaintiff argues that there was, at least, a question of fact as to whether he knew or should have known that Stennies was in the course of his employment and that if plaintiff reasonably did not know or if the government failed to disclose that fact, the government should be estopped from requiring a timely administrative claim. Alternatively, plaintiff argues, there is no requirement of an administrative claim where the action is commenced against the employee and the government moves to substitute itself as a party. In support of this position he relies upon Kelley v. United States, 568 F.2d 259 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 830, 99 S.Ct. 106, 58 L.Ed.2d 124 (1978).
There is no equitable exception to the jurisdictional prerequisites of the Federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Scherer
...1422 (6th Cir. 1996); Lundstrum v. Lyng, 954 F.2d 1142, 1145 (6th Cir. 1990); Ashbrook v. Block, 917 F.2d at 922; Rogers v. United States, 675 F.2d 123, 124 (6th Cir. 1982). In the case sub judice, Count II of Defendant's counterclaim suffers from two fatal flaws: first, Defendant fails to ......
-
Lafferty v. US
...this action was removed from state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); Pascale v. United States, 998 F.2d 186 (3d Cir.1993); Rogers v. United States, 675 F.2d 123 (6th Cir.1982) (exhaustion remains a prerequisite to filing a claim under the FTCA when the original action is brought in a state court ......
-
Wojton v. U.S., C-3-00-259.
...have held that the failure to file a timely administrative claim under the FTCA bars federal jurisdiction")(citing Rogers v. United States, 675 F.2d 123, 124 (6th Cir.1982)); see also 5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1350 (2d Herein, the VA argues ......
-
Juide v. City of Ann Arbor
...requirement which is not capable of waiver. Garrett v. United States, 640 F.2d 24, 26 (6th Cir. 1981); Rogers v. United States, 675 F.2d 123, 124 (6th Cir.1982). In the present case, Juide has neither alleged nor offered evidence to support the filing of an administrative claim. Hence, it i......