Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04049/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04049-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

1

 The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4049

___________

Nina V. Daniels, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

United States of America; * [UNPUBLISHED]

General Services Administration, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 9, 2005

Filed: June 16, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Nina V. Daniels appeals from the district court’s1

 dismissal of her claim. We

affirm.

Daniels allegedly sustained neck and back injuries in November 2000 when her

sweater caught on an escalator in a government building in St. Louis, Missouri,

managed by the General Services Administration (GSA). Daniels stated in an

Appellate Case: 04-4049 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2005 Entry ID: 1916567
-2-

affidavit that she informed GSA of her intent to file a claim and filled out the forms

that GSA provided to her. Daniels filed a complaint in federal court in July 2003

claiming damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§

2671–2680. A declaration from GSA’s regional counsel stated that GSA did not have

an administrative tort claim on file from Daniels. The district court dismissed the

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Daniels had failed to

exhaust her administrative remedies as required by the FTCA. Daniels did not

appeal, but instead sent a letter to the agency requesting a response to her complaint.

When she did not receive a response by July 2004, she filed a second, virtually

identical complaint. The district court again dismissed the complaint for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. The district court noted that although Daniels stated in

her affidavit that she timely completed the claims form, she “[did] not attest that she

even delivered the forms. Nor [did] she attest as to how or to whom the forms were

delivered.”

The FTCA provides a limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity

when certain jurisdictional prerequisites are met. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2674-75. Before a

party may file a lawsuit, she must have “presented the claim to the appropriate

Federal agency and [her] claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in

writing.” 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The claim is deemed denied by the agency if no

response is received within six months. Id. The implementing regulation clarifies

that “a claim shall be deemed to have been presented” if the relevant agency receives

either “an executed Standard Form 95 or other written notification of an incident,

accompanied by a claim for money damages in a sum certain.” 28 C.F.R. § 14.2

(2000). Because presentment is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the FTCA,

and jurisdiction is a threshold issue for the district court to decide, the district court

may appropriately resolve legal and factual questions determinative of jurisdiction

and may dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) if the FTCA

requirements are not met. See Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 728-29 (8th

Cir. 1990). We review for clear error the district court’s jurisdiction-determining

Appellate Case: 04-4049 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2005 Entry ID: 1916567
-3-

findings of fact. Appley Bros. v. United States, 164 F.3d 1164, 1170 (8th Cir. 1999).

It was Daniels’s burden to prove that federal jurisdiction existed under the FTCA.

See Bellecourt v. United States, 994 F.2d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1993). In the absence of

proof that she presented a claim to the GSA, the district court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction over the claim.

Daniels’s affidavit stated that she filled out the documents provided to her by

the agency, but failed to establish which form she used to make her claim and whether

or how she delivered the form to the agency. Absent any evidence of the

administrative claim’s content or delivery, we conclude that the district court’s

finding that Daniels failed to meet her burden of proof is not clearly erroneous. See,

e.g., Bellecourt, 994 F.2d at 430 (affirming the district court’s finding that the

plaintiff failed to show actual presentment when he used the incorrect form, did not

request money damages, and the agency did not receive the request).

The order of dismissal is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4049 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/16/2005 Entry ID: 1916567