Hart v. U.S.

Full title: TOMMY LEE HART and AMELIA HART Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas

Date published: Dec 5, 2003

Civil No. 3:03-CV-1092-H (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2003)

Opinion

Civil No. 3:03-CV-1092-H

December 5, 2003

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BAREFOOT SANDERS, Senior District Judge

Before the Court are Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed October 27, 2003; Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed November 17, 2003; and Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed November 25, 2003. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

I. Background

The relevant procedural history of this case is not disputed. On May 20, 2003, Plaintiffs filed an administrative claim with the regional counsel at the Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center, alleging negligence based on complications arising out of the knee surgery of Plaintiff Tommy Lee Hart. (D.'s Br. at Ex. A, Ex. B.) On the same day, without first obtaining a denial on the administrative claim, Plaintiffs filed the instant case pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), alleging the same negligence that they had alleged in their administrative claim. (D.'s Br. at Ex. C.) Defendant now moves to dismiss the instant case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to bringing suit. (D.'s Br. at 3.)

II. Analysis

In bringing suit pursuant to the FTCA, "[t]he subject matter jurisdiction of the court is conditioned on compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)." Price v. United States, 69 F.3d 46, 54 (5th Cir. 1995). Section 2675(a) provides that:

An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail. The failure of an agency to make a final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed shall, at the option of the claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes of this section.

28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). See also Saunders v. Bush, 15 F.3d 64, 66 (5th Cir. 1994) (recognizing that "persons seeking recovery under the FTCA must first present their `claim to the appropriate Federal agency,' and such claim must be `finally denied by the agency' before suit may be brought in Federal Court"); McCallister v. United States, 925 F.2d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 1991) ("If, . . . after six months from filing, the agency has not finally ruled, the claimant may treat the agency's failure to act as a final denial and he may file his suit at any time thereafter."). Plaintiffs filed their administrative claim and the instant case on the same day. Thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case because Plaintiffs did not obtain a final denial on their administrative claim prior to bringing suit.

Plaintiffs contend that their case should not be dismissed because six months have now passed without a final ruling on their administrative claim, such that they may deem the administrative claim denied and maintain the instant case. (Pl.s' Resp. at 2.) However, § 2675(a) "requires that jurisdiction must exist at the time the complaint is filed." Reynolds v. United States 748 F.2d 291, 292 (5th Cir. 1984) (quoting Gregory v. Mitchell, 634 F.2d 199, 204 (5th Cir. 1981)). Moreover, "[a]n action that is filed before the expiration of the six-month waiting period, and is thus untimely, cannot become timely by the passage of time after the complaint is filed." Price, 69 F.3d at 54. As the Supreme Court of the United States explained,

Every premature filing of an action under the FTCA imposes some burden on the judicial system and on the Department of Justice which must assume the defense of such actions. Although the burden may be slight in an individual case, the statute governs the processing of a vast multitude of claims. The interest in orderly administration of this body of litigation is best served by adherence to the straightforward statutory command [of § 2675(a)].

McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 112 (1993). Thus, Plaintiffs' contention is without merit.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.