Because the cause of Lamont's injuries was not readily apparent, it is appropriate for the Court to use the discovery rule to determine when his claim accrued. See Ryan v. United States, 534 F.3d 828, 831-32 (8th Cir. 2008); Brazzell v. United States, 788 F.2d 1352, 1356 (8th Cir. 1986). "The rationale behind extending the statute of limitations is to protect plaintiffs who are blindly unaware of their claim because the injury has not yet manifested itself."

When the district court makes findings of fact on disputed issues, we review those findings for clear error. Ryan v. United States , 534 F.3d 828, 831 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The burden of proving the existence of subject matter jurisdiction rests with the party invoking federal jurisdiction.

While we recognize our authority to "reconsider a prior panel's holding if, inter alia, an intervening Supreme Court decision . . . casts doubt on our controlling precedent," Loyal Tire Auto Center, Inc. v. Town of Woodbury, 445 F.3d 136, 145 (2d Cir. 2006), no such doubt is present here. See, e.g., Rasul v. Myers, 563 F.3d 527, 528 n. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (stating that FTCA exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional); Lightfoot v. United States, 564 F.3d 625, 626-27 (3d Cir. 2009) (same); Unus v. Kane, 565 F.3d 103, 114 n. 16 (4th Cir. 2009) (same); In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 345 Fed.Appx. 1, 4-5, 2009 WL 1868980, at *3 (5th Cir. 2009) (same); Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d 1030, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2009) (same); Dolan v. United States, 514 F.3d 587, 593 (6th Cir. 2008) (same); Turner ex rel. Turner v. United States, 514 F.3d 1194, 1200 (11th Cir. 2008) (same); Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (same); see also Ryan v. United States, 534 F.3d 828, 831 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that compliance with FTCA statute of limitations is jurisdictional requirement). In Parrott v. United States, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the FTCA exceptions found in 28 U.S.C. § 2680 are not "jurisdictional," construing McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 112, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993), as holding that FTCA rules are "prerequisites to suit, not jurisdictional barriers," 536 F.3d 629, 634-35 (7th Cir. 2008).

The court overruled the objection and sentenced him to 87 months imprisonment, the top of the guideline range. This court reviews a district court's legal determinations de novo. Ryan v. United States, 534 F.3d 828, 831 (8th Cir. 2008). A categorical approach applies in determining whether an offense is a crime of violence.

I. This court reviews a district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. Ryan v. United States, 534 F.3d 828, 831 (8th Cir. 2008). This court may affirm the judgment of the district court on any basis supported by the record.

The United States is not named as a defendant here. Even if it were, “[a] tort claim against the United States is barred unless the plaintiff files an administrative claim within two years after the claim accrues.” Ryan v. United States, 534 F.3d 828, 831 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)). Plaintiff asserts in the Complaint that he submitted the FTCA claims in July 2019, see Compl. at 4, but the forms themselves are dated December 11, 2023, see ECF No. 1-1 at 6-19.

However, courts have declined to find extraordinary circumstances when a plaintiff knows of his or her cause of action but lacks direct knowledge of all evidence. See Bennett v. Coors Brewing Co., 189 F.3d 1221, 1235 (10th Cir. 1999) (finding that "[e]quitable tolling is not warranted where an employee is aware of all of the facts constituting discriminatory treatment but lacks direct knowledge of the employer's subjective discriminatory purpose") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State of Ohio v. Peterson, Lowry, Rall, Barber & Ross, 651 F.2d 687, 695 (10th Cir. 1981) (examining the equitable tolling doctrine and finding that discovery of the fraud, not the possession of hard evidence, begins the statute of limitations); see also Ryan v. United States, 534 F.3d 828, 832 (8th Cir. 2008) (extraordinary circumstances not present when twins who were switched at birth in 1946 and had suspected the switch since the 1970s could have discovered the basis for their claims by conducting an inquiry and filing their FTCA claim before 2002).

The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on her summary judgment motion as well as the burden to show she is entitled to an exception under the statute of limitations. Ryan v. U.S., 534 F.3d 828, 831 (8th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff filed suit on January 22, 2013.

1. Green's FTCA claim against Houser, Colvin, and the United States is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); Ryan v. United States, 534 F.3d 828, 831 (8th Cir. 2008)(per curiam). He did not, he acknowledges, file an administrative claim with the Social Security Administration. No 72 at 7-8.

"A tort claim against the United States is barred unless the plaintiff files an administrative claim within two years after the claim accrues." Ryan v. United States, 534 F.3d 828, 831 (2008) (per curiam) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)). A wrongful death action accrues on the date of death.