Opinion
No. 3:02-CV-1184-D
January 15, 2003
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the court filed on October 21, 2002, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed on October 15, 2002, has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Type of Case: This is an action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for wrongful acts and omissions committed by employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in their official capacities. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 2671 et seq. Parties: Plaintiff is a federal inmate presently incarcerated at the Federal Correction Institution (FCI) in Seagoville, Texas. Defendant is the United States of America.
Statement of Case: The complaint alleges that BOP employees at FCI Seagoville lost and/or destroyed personal property belonging to Plaintiff on October 25, 2000. Plaintiff requests actual damages of $1,345.50 for the lost/destroyed property.
Findings and Conclusions: The FTCA requires that claimants file suit within six months "after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented." 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). If this statute of limitations is not met, a tort claim against the United States is barred on jurisdictional grounds. Suits against the government under the FTCA must be filed in strict compliance with its provisions See e.g., Goff v. United States, 659 F.2d 560, 561-62 (5th Cir. 1981) (time limitations enacted by Congress in statutes waiving government immunity are to be strictly construed in favor of government); Childers v. United States, 442 F.2d 1299, 1303 (5th Cir. 1971) (exact compliance with terms is condition precedent to FTCA suit); Gallion v. United States, 389 F.2d 522, 524 (5th Cir. 1968) (prescribed period after agency's denial of claim in which FTCA suit must be brought is substantial jurisdictional requirement).
Plaintiff failed to file this suit within the six-month deadline set out in § 2401(b). On November 27, 2001, the BOP denied Plaintiffs administrative claim. (Appendix to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Exh. B). Plaintiff filed this action on June 7, 2002, ten days after the May 27, 2002 deadline for filing this suit. Therefore, this action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
This action is barred even if the court applies the "mailbox rule," which permits prisoners proceeding pro se to have filed a pleading when they have handed the same to prison officials for mailing. The mail log establishes that Plaintiff's complaint was deposited with prisoner officials for mailing on June 4, 2002, seven days after the six-month deadline. (Appendix to Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Exh. B at p. 33).
In Perez v. United States, 167 F.3d 913 (5th Cir. 1999), the Fifth Circuit held that equitable tolling is applicable to the two-year deadline for filing an administrative claim with a federal agency despite the jurisdictional nature of the FTCA statute. Whether equitable tolling is applicable to the six-month deadline for filing suit following denial of an administrative claim remains an issue of first impression in the Fifth Circuit. The courts that have addressed this issue have gone both ways. Stanfill v. United States, 43 F. Supp.2d 1304 (M.D. Ala. 1999) (applying equitable tolling to six-month deadline for filing suit in federal court); but see Wukawitz v. United States, 170 F. Supp.2d 1165 (D. Utah 2001) (refusing to apply equitable tolling to six-month deadline).
Assuming arguendo that equitable tolling is applicable to the six-month deadline for filing suit, equitable tolling is unjustified under the facts of this case. See Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151 (1984) (describing the types of cases where courts have applied equitable tolling). This is not a case in which a claimant has received inadequate notice; or where the court has led the plaintiff to believe that he has done everything required of him. Nor is this a case where affirmative misconduct on the part of a defendant lulled the plaintiff into inaction. Moreover, Plaintiff has tried to mislead the court by falsely representing the certified receipt number of the envelope he used to mail his complaint. (See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss at 2 and Exh. B attached thereto). Having come to court with "unclean hands" he is ineligible for equitable relief. McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352, 360 (1995) (noting the well established equity maxim that a suitor who engaged in his own reprehensible conduct in the course of a transaction must be denied equitable relief because of unclean hands).
RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the District Court grant Defendant's motion and dismiss Plaintiffs complaint for want of jurisdiction.
A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff and counsel for the government.