* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no

precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled

principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 94-11045

Summary Calendar

_______________________

LOUIS BEHELER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:92 CV 2113 P)

_________________________________________________________________

August 16, 1995

Before JONES, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Louis Beheler appeals the dismissal of his premises

liability complaint against the Resolution Trust Company (RTC).

The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction because Beheler failed to comply with the

administrative claim requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2675. Finding no

error, we affirm.
 

1 The RTC came into possession of the subject property pursuant to its

role as receiver for a failed savings and loan.

2

BACKGROUND

While in pursuit of a fleeing suspect, Beheler, a police

officer, allegedly injured his back when he tripped and fell on a

"dangerous condition" located on the RTC's property.1 Beheler

filed an administrative claim with the RTC contending that his

investigation showed that the RTC owned the property located at

"200 North Hwy. 175 in Seagoville, Texas," and that such property

was maintained in a dangerous condition causing Beheler's injury.

The administrative claim sought damages of two million dollars.

Several months later, an RTC representative denied the

claim in writing, "Based on the documentation presented, I find no

basis to support this claim. Accordingly, your . . . claim is

hereby denied."

After receiving the letter of denial, Beheler filed a

lawsuit against the RTC seeking to recover under the Federal Tort

Claims Act (FTCA). However, the lawsuit identified the property

where Beheler was injured by a different address than that

identified in the administrative claim. Rather than "200 North

Hwy. 175 in Seagoville, Texas," the complaint listed the address as

1920 North Hwy. 175 in Seagoville, Texas." Noticing the

discrepancy, the RTC moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to

comply with the administrative claim requirement. The RTC also

sought dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
3

The district court granted RTC's motion to dismiss

without prejudice on the failure to comply with the administrative

claim requirement, but did not rule on the 12(b)(6) aspect of the

motion. Beheler appealed the administrative claim ruling; the RTC

cross-appealed on the failure to rule on Rule 12(b)(6).

DISCUSSION

As a prerequisite to bringing suit under the FTCA, 28

U.S.C. § 2675 requires that an administrative claim be first

presented to the federal agency involved. Absent such a claim, the

district court lacks jurisdiction over the suit. Frantz v. U.S.,

29 F.3d 222, 224 (5th Cir. 1994).

Section 2675 imposes two requirements on the claimant.

First, the claimant must give the agency written notice of the

claim sufficient to enable the agency to investigate. Second, the

claimant must place a value on his or her claim. Adams v. U.S.,

615 F.2d 284, 289, clarified, 622 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1980).

Beheler expressly valued his claim at two million dollars.

Therefore, the narrow issue is whether the incorrect address

provided by Beheler was sufficient to enable the agency to

investigate the claim. We agree with the district court that it

was not.

To be sufficient, an administrative claim must provide

"enough details to enable the agency to begin its own investigation

. . . ." Id. at 292. The location of the tort giving rise to the

injury is a crucial element of the administrative claim. See

Frantz, 29 F.3d at 224; Cook v. U.S., 978 F.2d 164, 166 (5th Cir.
4

1992). Beheler's claim to the RTC specifically identified the

alleged location of his injury as "that certain property located at

200 North Hwy. 175," and further averred that his "investigation

shows that the Resolution Trust Corporation was the owner of such

property at such time and had been for some period of time." After

investigating "that certain property located at 200 North Hwy.

175," the RTC determined that it did not own the property and thus

denied the claim. It is undisputed that Beheler was not injured at

the location identified in the claim.

 The avowed purpose of section 2675 is "'to ease court

congestion and avoid unnecessary litigation, while making it

possible for the Government to expedite the fair settlement of tort

claims asserted against the United States.'" Adams, 615 F.2d at

288 (quoting S.Rep.No.1327, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess. 6, reprinted in

U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1215-16). To allow Beheler to alter the address

submitted to the RTC, then file a lawsuit based on the new address,

would frustrate this purpose because the RTC would not have had the

opportunity to evaluate the claim prior to litigation. Because

"[s]uits against the government under the FTCA must be filed in

strict compliance with its provisions," Reynolds v. U.S., 748 F.2d

291, 292 (5th Cir. 1984), the district court correctly dismissed

because it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

Since Beheler's failure to file an administrative claim

divested the court of jurisdiction over this case, it is

unnecessary to determine the sufficiency of the complaint under
5

Texas law or whether RTC is an agency under the Federal Tort Claims

Act.

AFFIRMED.