Stewart v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-2516,80-2516 |
| Citation | 655 F.2d 741 |
| Parties | Angela M. STEWART, A Minor by Mary Stewart, her mother and next friend, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Frederick H. Branding, Asst. U. S. Atty., Michael S. O'Connell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.
Sherwin Greenberg, Skokie, Ill., for defendants-appellees.
Before CUMMINGS and PELL, Circuit Judges, and MARKEY, Chief Judge of the U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. **
In a letter dated September 27, 1979, the Postal Service denied plaintiff's claim for injuries suffered in a collision with one of its trucks. In accord with the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401 (Act), the letter notified plaintiff of her right to file suit "against the United States ... not later than six months from the date of this letter." Plaintiff sued the Postal Service and its truck driver on March 26, 1980. The Government moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on June 2, 1980, on the ground that the United States is the only proper defendant under the Act. On July 23, 1980, plaintiff amended her complaint, adding the United States as a defendant. The district court, 503 F.Supp. 59, granted the motion to dismiss on September 26, 1980, holding that the limitation in the Act on time for bringing suit was jurisdictional in nature and not subject to equitable considerations. Best Bearings Co. v. United States, 463 F.2d 1177, 1179 (7th Cir. 1972).
On appeal, plaintiff argues that her suit against the truck driver, an employee of the United States, was in effect a suit against the United States. Plaintiff has no cause of action, however, against an employee, her exclusive remedy being an action against the United States. Noga v. United States, 411 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 841, 90 S.Ct. 104, 24 L.Ed.2d 92 (1969). Plaintiff also argues that her amendment of July 23, 1980, should be related back to March 26, 1980, under Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the Government would not be prejudiced thereby. Relation back under Rule 15(c) requires, however, that actual notice be received by the Government within the period provided by law for commencing the action. Carr v. Veterans Administration, 522 F.2d 1355 (5th Cir. 1975). That notice must comply with Rules 4(d)(4) and (5). Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, 39 F.R.D. 82 (1966). No notice, formal or informal, occurred during the limitations period here. Having elected to file suit on the last day of the limitations period, plaintiff requests us to add to that period a "reasonable time" for service of process. We cannot expand the fully adequate six-month period established by Congress. Moreover, application...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Williams
...original action as it has a separate and distinct nature as a plaintiff in this law suit. See 28 U.S.C. ? 1345(a). In Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741 (7th Cir.1981), the court rejected the argument that a suit against a federal agency, the Postal Service and its employees, was in eff......
-
Healy v. US Postal Service
...defendant will not relate back to the original complaint unless the notice requirement of Rule 15(c) is met. Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981); Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir.1986); Hughes v. U.S.A., 701 F.2d 56, 58-59 (7th In the present case, the plaint......
-
Smith v. Mark Twain Nat. Bank
...Stewart v. United States, 503 F.Supp. 59, 63 (N.D.Ill.1980) (Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2401(b)), aff'd, 655 F.2d 741 (7th Cir.), aff'd, 659 F.2d 1084 (7th Cir.1981). Although we are unaware of a court specifically holding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable t......
-
Jackson v. Kotter
...the proper defendant for tort claims involving acts of the named officials within the scope of their employment."); Stewart v. United States, 655 F.2d 741, 742 (7th Cir.1981) ("Plaintiff has no cause of action ... [under the FTCA] against an employee, her exclusive remedy being an action ag......