Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00605/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00605-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

The case was originally filed in state court and removed to this court by 1

defendants.

While defendants attach documents extrinsic to the pleadings, they argue that 2

dismissal is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) an (h)(3) because the

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The court does not consider this motion under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) – judgment on the pleadings – and, therefore, does not convert the

motion to a motion for summary judgment due to the presentation of extrinsic evidence. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS M. KLASSY, No. CIV S-07-0605-GEB-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

UNITED STATES POSTAL

SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action for damages. Pending 1

before the court is defendants’ motion for “judgment on the pleadings” in which they argue that

this action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not filed an 2

Case 2:07-cv-00605-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

opposition to defendants’ motion.

As defendants correctly note, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(b)(1) may either facially or factually

challenge the existence of the court’s jurisdiction to hear the subject matter of the action. See

White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). Where, as here, the assertion of lack of

subject matter jurisdiction is based on the argument that the plaintiff failed to exhaust required

administrative remedies prior to filing suit, the motion amounts to a factual attack on jurisdiction. 

 See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). In such a motion, the court may

look beyond the factual allegations of the complaint to decide a factual attack on jurisdiction. 

See Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 1039 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Wyatt, 315

F.3d at 1119. “In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust non-judicial remedies, the

court may look beyond the pleading and decide disputed issues of fact.” Wyatt, 315 F.3d at

1119-20. If the court concludes that administrative remedies have not been exhausted, the

unexhausted claim should be dismissed. See id. at 1120. 

Defendants argue that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to

filing suit because he did not comply with the requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act

(“FTCA”), which provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Defendants conclude that,

absent compliance with the FTCA, plaintiff is barred from bringing suit. See Dep’t of the Army

v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 260 (1999); see also Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 521

(9th Cir. 1992). An essential requirement of the FTCA is the presentation of a valid

administrative claim within two years of the alleged incident. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). To be

valid, the claim must, among other things, seek a sum certain. See Blair v. IRS, 304 F.3d 861,

865 (9th Cir. 2002). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00605-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

It should be noted that box 12d contains the following warning: “Failure to 3

specify may cause forfeiture of your rights.”

The complaint was initially filed in state court on October 30, 2006. 4

3

In this case, plaintiff claims personal injury and property damage resulting from

an October 29, 2004, motor vehicle accident with a vehicle operated by employees of defendant

United States Postal Service. In his complaint, plaintiff states that he has suffered wage loss, loss

of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, property damage, loss of

earning capacity, and other unspecified damages. Defendants attach to their motion plaintiff’s

FTCA claim form. On that form, in box 12d, plaintiff states that the total amount of damages is

unknown and “still under evaluation.” Plaintiff never submitted any other information in 3

connection with his FTCA claim.

Defendants conclude that, because plaintiff never claimed a sum certain, his

FTCA claim was not valid and, therefore, plaintiff failed to exhaust required administrative

remedies prior to filing the instant lawsuit. The court agrees. The undisputed evidence

establishes conclusively that plaintiff’s FTCA claim did not state any sum certain. Instead,

plaintiff stated that the amount of damages was unknown and under investigation. Because he

never asserted a sum certain, the claim was not valid and did not serve to exhaust administrative

remedies. Finally, because plaintiff filed the instant action more than two years after the vehicle

accident, it would be impossible for him to now exhaust administrative remedies. Therefore, 4

this action should be dismissed, with prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Defendants unopposed motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction be granted; 

2. This action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to exhaust required

administrative remedies; and

3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment and close this file.

Case 2:07-cv-00605-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 08/20/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 17, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00605-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 08/20/07 Page 4 of 4