Opinion
Case No. 20040518-CA.
Filed August 19, 2004. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from the Third District, Salt Lake Department, The Honorable Frank G. Noel.
Jerry W. Dickey, Draper, Appellant Pro Se.
Mark L. Shurtleff, Brent A. Burnett, and Reed M. Stringham III, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Jackson.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Jerry W. Dickey appeals from the dismissal of his action against the Utah Department of Corrections pursuant to the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (the Immunity Act). This case is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition on the basis that the grounds for Dickey's appeal are so insubstantial that they do not merit further review by this court. See Utah R. App. P. 10(e).
"Compliance with the Immunity Act is a prerequisite to vesting a district court with subject matter jurisdiction over claims against governmental entities." See Wheeler v. McPherson, 2002 UT 16, ¶ 9, 40 P.3d 632. Utah courts have consistently held that suit may not be brought against the state or its subdivisions unless the requirements of the Immunity Act are strictly followed. See id. at ¶ 11; Hall v. Department of Corr., 2001 UT 34, ¶ 23, 24 P.3d 958 ("Where the government grants statutory rights of action against itself, any conditions placed upon those rights must be precisely followed.").
Utah Code section 63-30-14 states that a governmental entity has ninety days from the filing of a notice of claim to approve or deny said claim.See Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-14 (1997). A claim is deemed denied if no action is taken by the governmental entity at the end of ninety days.Id. Once a claim is denied, either expressly or by implication after the ninety-day period expires, a party has one year to file a claim with the appropriate district court. See Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-15 (1997). Dickey filed his complaint before the ninety-day period for approval or denial had elapsed, and before the claim was specifically denied by the Department of Corrections.
Utah law is clear that "plaintiffs with claims against the state `may institute an action in the district court' only after their `claim is denied.'" Hall, 2001 UT 34 at ¶ 26 (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-15(1)). Dickey filed his complaint with the district court too early, preventing the district court from obtaining subject matter jurisdiction over the cause of action.
Accordingly, the trial court's dismissal of the action is affirmed.
Russell W. Bench, Associate Presiding Judge, James Z. Davis, Judge, Norman H. Jackson, Judge.