the statute of limitations does not bar ms concept he ca claim because she made a timely claim to the marshal service within two years of her injuries and she timely filed this suit within six months of the agency's final denial of her claim and this case concerns three separate limitations periods in this kind of satisfied all of them first the government seems to concede that misconduct satisfied the six month limitation period contained in section twenty four a one b turning to the two year limitation period of twenty four one b miss come first made a claim to the marshal service within two years of her injuries and a letter that's that's it that in compliance with the statute misconduct touched those two letters from the marshal service responding to her letters to her district court complaint demonstrating her initial timely claim that alone should have been enough to survive the government's motion to dismiss and the district court instead of this constant was dismissed without consideration of those letters the district court's decision should be reversed with respect to the contents of  claim her letters to the agency d o j regulations to impose additional requirements on f t c i plaintiff's beyond complying with that to your limitation period based on those regulations this court and can are hel claim as presented when four requirements are met first is notification of the incident second as demand for a sum certain and the next two have to do with the legal capacity of the person signing the letter misconduct acting on her own behalf as those are not relevant to this case misconduct so notified the agency of the incident in detail the only one of those requirements that's actually at issue here is whether or not elements of the court was very clear that the plaintiff need not comply with everyman new show of those requirements so long as there is no harm done the court provided as an example previous case bukola and which the f t c a plaintiff failed to present her claim to the proper agency and the court found that that was a harmless error and allowed the claim to proceed right but the point of the notice of claim requirement in any jurisdiction were here in the federal jurisdiction is to allow government to compromise the claim in advance of litigation and which doesn't make any demand for money at all or had any other indicia of a monetary claim could be satisfactory to exhaust and it just isn't in the nature of an administrative claim for monetary relie f lot of people filing complaints without asking for money or seeking money they're noisy you know or some government mishap so they complain but how would the government know that it was anything that magnitude i don't know that there's anything that would allow them to guess at the amount of her claim but the letter does and layout and did i'm sorry i didn't quite hear your question did the government conduct an investigation of the marshals behavior toward con i'm not certain whether it's it or not it says that  what was that conclusion were not aware of the conclusion the government did not disclose and judge sykes returning to your question i think the letter provides notice it doesn't provide notice of claim in the sense that that term means in this context notice of claim statutes exist to protect the public fisc and unless there's something in the communication that suggests that the individual is making a demand for money then it's not a notice of claim as used in this statute it's just a complaint about and government agen acting badly even if even if that were the case and i do think that there's an up and up details in the letter to show that there's a tort claim that's it least possible they could be brought against the government when you look at the content of the marshall services letters in response to miss kahn you'd see you know a number of comments that would leave misconduct the leave that she had in fact done more  and prevented her from perfect her claim and so there are two comments in particular that i'd like to point out the first and this is the marshall letters the marshal services first letter page a sixty  but she responded to the agency requesting additional process inquiring into her claim and the marshal service responded and assured her that she had provided all the information that it needed it was an internal discipline a discrepancy don't do that again or it's on the move more training is good taking seriously doesn't mean that they're getting out their wallet it means that they're trying to make whatever happened if it happened  not happening that's true but when it affirmatively states that miss kahn had provided all of the information that the agency needed its making an affirmative statement that would your guests who were million dollars isn't exactly on the plate when they're reacting to a writer well that it would depend on the results of the agency's investigation which we point certainly alleges that de there was some intent involved and there groping that resulted from that when the agent was trying to buckle under seat belt  but but going back to the a stopping point when the agency affirmatively states that ms controverted all the information it needed it puts her in a position that she she can't perfect her claim she's relying on the  government's representation that she has essentially provided the complete information yet but that begs the question about whether this letter is a claim which you know gets back to my point about it not being in the form that one matters right so that the government really knows that there is a suit for damages contemplated in needs to investigate not just an incident report or a complaint but a possible claim for public funds yes the four matters but given that misconduct lay out a very detailed facts i think that the agency was on was on notice of potential claims against it and the agency and its first letter did respond to to ms khan and affirmative least stated that it viewed her letter as a complaint right and if we accept your argument then any incident report or complaint about you know a police officer or a law enforcement officer and a police officer or in the federal context here in a law enforcement officer or any other government agent behaving badly  that that constitutes a notice of claim i think that that would be an extraordinary reading of the statute if i agree with you that that would be an extraordinary reading of the statute but that is not what i am asking you to do in this case and why you are here saying it doesn't matter that there wasn't a demand for money this counsel that any other communication complaining about some government bad actor is a notice of claim under the statute even without a demand for money only only if the lack of a demand for money is harmless and in this case i believe it was because miss kahn laid out sufficient factual detail in her letter to lay out torts that are fac of complaint does not a twenty six seventy five complaint or claim make what we have as this court i think is recognized is a letter of complaint it is not a f t c a claim they are not equal to each other when the few things we agree on in this case the plaintiff as call the letter in question a letter of complaint and then switch to use the word claim in their brief as noted twenty eight c a four fourteen point two a requires four factors two are important here and i think this we've already established that one hasn't been met which is some  arguably exhibit a contained in the reply brief two page letter although it may refer to some bad action as the court has noted i would suggest to the court that there is not any indication in there that an injury occur the marshal service supposed to guess it that there is no indication for example in this letter that she had to go to a doctor or that she was in counseling for p t s d at this point there's nothing in there that's clear on its face that there was an injury so when this came to the marshal service it's pretty clear that they treated as a complaint of malfeasance malfeasance misconduct on behalf of their marshal service and in fact it was investigated as such and it's very clear that in the two letters that came back they called it a complaint they did not call it a claim for monetary damages now i mean this court is the district court down to look into the intent of con when she submitted this letter to the marshal service but it's pretty clear in her own mind i think from all the documents that she submitted she did not consider this to be a claim a tort claim against the government i referenced in my brief a letter that her physician sent to senator russ feingold in two thousand and nine when she was complaining to anyone who would listen about the marshal service and even those who wouldn't in that in that letter to senator feingold her physician dr weil states she did ask the u s department of justice to investigate the u s marshals action but was told that due to privacy issues she was not entitle to know the outcome of the investigation ms khan believes she is being treated very and justly it is my medical opinion that the lack of a more detailed explanation from the u s department of justice is not allowing my patient to bring any closure to this incident and is worsening her anxiety as you notice there is no mention of a claim or monetary damages or a pending lawsuit it is her complaints about what she perceived to be the misconduct  fact the court asked about investigation that letter was obviously went to senator feingold senator feingold for that his communication on to the liaison for the marshal service a letter came back saying we investigated it and the department of justice investigated it and we can't tell the outcome what we know what happened because they dealt as this court is inferred as a personnel issue i think what we have here is a great deal of effort and  behalf of the plaintiff to somehow fit this square letter of complaint into the round hole of a tort claim and they haven't succeeded in doing that the two theories that they struggle with to insinuate that somehow this this letter should qualify is that the government somehow suggested and let her stray by giving her a straightforward answer to a letter of complaint certain as well as injury were not met those are not jot and tittle and those cannot be excused the whole purpose of a tort claim is to allow the government the opportunity to settle prior to clogging the courts plaintiff in this case has not met the requirements of twenty four a one b be more complicated than strictly statue and dushan right that's that's the only motion be filed in the district court it was really quite clear because this incident happened in two thousand and six she didn't submit her formal claimants of two thousand and thirteen it really defeats the in pot in tire purpose of trying to get litigation into court promptly the government as well as every living good should be free from a stale prosecution that example in this case is really the plaintiff did not file the actual letter government security gap we wrote our brief in this particular case and it was difficult to find it because from the marshal's perspective this case was done back in two thousand and six with the or two thousand and seven when this con was convicted in the criminal case and the letter certainly accomplishes that and and and actually accomplishes more it it lays out facts for that support facially apparent tort claims against the government is to allow the government to initiate a settlement process the court can are also held that if an f t c a plaintiff somehow fails to comply with one of these requirements  that process did not prevent the government from initiating a subtle process or at least inquiring into more information there isn't is it going to be that the letter met the statute of limitations you have to file a complete well yes the complaint yes not filed within six years of the incident well this court and old ben kohl and the supreme court in crown coat held that that six year limitation period runs from the date of the agency's final to niall so it's so in this case that this matter because she filed her claim really within a matter of months after receiving the agency's final tomorrow after she found a proper form ninety five yes ok so and that happened later in two thousand and twelve right she yes she followed up with the government and filed an s f fifty later i believe those twenty thirt