F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 1 6, 2008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1101 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 07-01705 -CV -T CB-1 DEAN SENE CA, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED SOUTH AND EA STERN TRIBES, et al., Defen da nt s, UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 16, 200 8) Be fo re T JO FL A T , BL A CK and KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

De an Seneca

appeals the district court’ s order substitu ting th e U nited States fo r the nam ed

de fe ndants and d ism iss ing his tor t c la im s f or f ai lur e to e xhaust adm inistrative rem edies under the Federa l Tort C laim s Act. For the r easons stated b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. BACKGRO UND Co ngr es s ha s pr ovi de d f

or I ndi antr ibe s and tri ba l or ganiz at ion s to e nte r int o ag re em en ts w iththe U nit ed S ta te s c al le d “ Se lf

-D et er m inatio n C ontra ct s” w he re by the tribe or organization takes on respon sibili ty for program s or services to Indian po pu la ti on s t ha t o th erwi se wou ldha ve be en pro vi de d b y th e Fed eral go ve rn m en t. 25 U . S. C. § 45 0b(

j ). T he tr ibe or

or ganiz at ionr ec ei ve s F ed er al f unds to he lp i t ope rate tho se pr ogr am s and s er vic es . United South and Eastern T ribes (“ US ET ”) is a non-profit organization that re pr es en ts num er ous A m er ic anI ndi antr ibe s c oll ec tiv el y . U SE T e nte re d in to a self-deter m ination contract w ith the U. S. De partm ent of He alth and Hum an Se rv ic es / I ndi anH ea lthS er vic e (“ H H S/ IH S” ) to a ssi st w ithhe al th p ro gr am s. T he co ntr ac t st at ed

that, a m ong oth er

thi ngs, U SE T w oul d pr ovi de ti m el y dis se m inatio n of

he al th i nf

orm at ionto the T ri ba l H ea lthP ro gr am s inthe N as hvi lle A re a, a dm ini str at ive se rv ic es in co or din at ing and f ac ili ta tin g th e m ee tin gs and ac tiv iti es of

the H ea lthCo m

m itt ee , and t ec hni ca l a ssi stanc e to a ll ar ea tr ibe s w ith3

re gard to the c ont inu ing de ve lop m en t of the ir he al th p ro gr am s. T his c ontra ct a lso st at edth atitwas t o b e “ li be ral ly con st ru edforth e b en efi t o f th e Co nt ract or .” In200 6, U SE T w as a ske d to r ep re se nt A m er ic anI ndi anand A la skan N at ive T ri be s and t es tif

y be fo re H H S’ s T ri ba l B udge t C onsu ltatio n S es sio n and the N at ion al D ivi sio na l B udge t F orm ulatio n and C onsu ltatio n S es sio n. D ean S en ec a w as e m

plo y ed by the A ge nc y

f or T oxi c Su bst an ce s and Disease Registry

(“ AT SD R”) as the Assistant Dire ctor of the O ffice of T ribal Af fairs. Prior to the bud get m eetings, Senec a attem pted to cont act em

ploy ees at U SE T thr oughpho ne c al ls, e m ai ls, and p er sona l e nc ount er s to te ll the m w ha t t o inc lud e in the ir

te sti m ony . Jam es Mart in, the n E xe cu tiv e D ir ec tor of U SE T , w ro te a le tte r to S en ec a’ s su

pe rv iso r co m

pla ini ng a

bout S en ec a ha vin g c ont ac te d hi m an do t h erUS ET e m

p l o yees i n ap p ro p ri at el y re g ar d i n g th e t es t i m o n y. Se n ec a’s supe rv iso r re que ste d a ddi tio na l i nf orm at ionand e vid en ce , and U SE T sup pli ed a se co nd, m or e de ta ile d le tte r ab out S en ec a’ s m isc ondu ct . S en ec a’ s j ob d id n ot, apparently , r equire him

to contact US ET about the testim ony , and the letter stated th athi s m an ne r was als o i napp ro pr ia te an d a gg res si ve . As a result of the investig ation int o these com plaints from

US ET , S eneca w as of fi ci al ly r ep ri m an de d by

his e m plo y er , r em ove d f

ro m his pos iti on at the Offi ce o f Trib al Affai rs , and reas si gn edto an ot he r di vi si on wit hi n ATSDR.Seneca alleg ed libel, interfe renc e with employ ment, intentional infliction of emotional 1 d i s tre s s , i n v as i o no f p ri v ac y , an d i n j ury t o h i s p ea ce , h ap p i n es s an d fe el i n g. 4 Seneca subm itted an internal adm inistrative grievance to his em ploy er, the CD C, ch al le ngi ng h is r ea ssi gnm en t and c la im ing that the a lle ga tio ns a ga ins t hi m in the le tte rs f ro m U SE T w er e fa lse . I n th e gr ie vanc e, S en ec a re que ste d r ei nst at em en t t o his f orm er pos iti on, a ddi tio na l tra ini ng, and atto rn ey s’ f ee s and c ost s. Seneca also filed this tort su it against USE T, and three U SE T e m ploy ees 1 for m aking false statem ents disp araging him . Ac ting U.S . A ttorney Sally Quillian Y at es sub m itt ed

ac er tif ic at ionthat the nam ed

de fe ndants w er e ac tin g inthe sc ope of their em

ploym ent as Feder al E m

ploy ees. T he certification stated that Ms. Y ates ha d r ea ch ed

thi s c onc lus iona ft er

r ev ie w ing the I ndi anS el f- D et er m inatio n A gr ee m en t be tw ee n th e U nit ed S ta te s and U SE T and the de cl ar at ionof D ar et ia Hawkins, an attorney

for H HS , wherein Ms. Hawkins states her opinio n that US ET is a tribal contractor e ntitled to Feder al T orts Claim s Act ( “ FT CA” ) coverage. T he U. S. then filed a N otice of Substitut ion requestin g that the United St at es be sub sti tut ed

a s th e de fe ndant p ur suant t o th e Fe de ra l E m plo y ee s L ia

bil ity Reform and Tort C om

pensation Ac t, 28 U .S .C. § 2679 (d). T he district court gr an te d th e subs tit

uti on and the n di sm iss ed the c as e fo r fa ilure to ex haust ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s u nd er t he FTCA.5 DISC US SION When an Indian tribe or tribal organization op erate s pursuant to a selfde te rm inatio n c ontra ct

and i ts e m

plo y ee s op er at e w ith in the sc ope of the ir em plo ym en t i n c ar

ry ing out suc h ac ontra ct

or a gr ee m en t, the or ganiz at ionis considered a part of the F ederal governm ent and its em ploy ees ar e considered Fe de ra l e m

plo y ee s f or the pur pose s of the F T CA . S ee 25 U . S. C. § 45 0f . “ Whe n a federa l em

ploy ee is sued for a wr ongful o r negligent act, the F ederal E m ploy ees L ia bil ity Re fo rm and T ort C om

pe nsa tio n A ct

of 198 8 ( co m

m onl y kno w n a s th e W estfall A ct) em

powers the A ttorney

Ge neral to cer

tify that the em

ploy ee ‘ wa s ac tin g w ith in the sc ope of his of fi ce or e m plo ym en t a t the ti m e of

the inc ide nt o ut of w hic h th e cl ai m

aro se . ’ ” G uti er

re z de Mart ine z v. L am ag no, 515 U . S. 417 , 419-42 0 (1995) (quo ting 2 8 U. S. C. § 267 9(d)(1)). A fter c ertification, the nam ed de fe ndant e m

plo y ee is dis m iss ed

f ro m the a ct ionand the U nit ed S ta te s is subs tit ute d a s th e de fe ndant; the c as e is the n go ve rn ed by the F T CA . I d. A . W as t he Ce rti fic ati on b y the U . S. A tto rne

y Suf fic ie nt? Seneca first challenges the sufficiency of the cer

tification m ade by

the U. S. A tto rn ey . S en ec a ar gue s th at the c er tif ic at ionw as ina de qua te be ca use it f ai le d to specify that the defendants wer e acting within the scope of their Feder alThe Supreme Court has deter mined that Fe dera l courts may revie w the U.S. Attorney ’s 2 scope- of-e mploy

ment cer tification. Guiterr ez, 515 U.S. at 420; see also F lohr v. Mackovjak, 84 F.3d 386, 390 ( 11th Cir. 1996). This responsibility

has bee n deleg ated to the U.S. Attorne y s. See 28 C.F.R. § 15.4. 3 6 em plo ym en t purs uant

to anI ndi anse lf

-d et er m inatio n c ontra ct . W e fi nd tha t this specification was not required, and that the certification was com plete. 2 U nde r the law , the U nit ed S ta te s sh al l be sub sti tut ed a s th e de fe ndant

“ [u] pon certification by

the Attorney

Ge neral that the defendant em ploy ee w as 3 ac tin g w ith in the sc ope of his of fi ce or e m plo ym en t a t the ti m e of

the inc ide nt o ur of w hic h th e cl ai m

aro se . . . . ” 28 U . S. C. § 26 79( d) (1 ). U . S. A tto rn ey ’ s Y at es ’ ce rt if ic at ionpr ovi de d e xa ct ly

thi s in fo rm at ion . T he c er tif ic at ionstate d “ the ind ivi dua l nam ed

de fe ndants . . . w er e ac tin g w ith in the sc ope of the ir e m plo ym en t as e m plo y ee s of

the G ove rn m en t a t the ti m e of the e ve nts a lle ge d. ” T his langua ge s at i s fi ed th e r eq u i re m en t s o f 2 8 U.S .C . § 2 6 7 9 (d )( 1 ). We fi n dth e ap p el l an t ’s argum ent that the certification n eeded to state explicitly that the defendants wer e acting within the scope of their Federa l em ploym ent pursuant to an Indian selfd e t e rmi n a t i o n c o n t r a c tu np e r s u a s i v e an dwi t h o u tau t h o r i t y. B . W as t he Sub sti tut ion of the U

nit ed Sta tes as the D ef

en dant Prope r?

“ [A ] lth oughthe A tto rn ey G en er al ’ s c er

tif ic at ionis prima facie evidence th atth e em

pl oyee act edwit hi n t he sco pe of h is em pl oym en t, t he di st ric t co ur t . . .7

de ci de [s ] the iss ue de nov o. ” F loh r, 84 F . 3d at 39 0. “ H ow ev er , the bur de n of al te ri ng the status quo by pr ovi ng tha t the e m

plo y ee a ct ed

out sid e the sc ope of em pl oym en t i s o n t he pl ai nt iff .” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n a nd alt erat io ns om it te d) . Se ne ca arg ue s th at

the nam ed

de fe ndants w er e ac tin g ou tsi de the sc ope of the ir Federa l em

ploym ent because (i) there is no valid self-determ ination contract, or, al te rn at ive ly , ( ii) that the de fe ndants w er e ope ratin g ou tsi de that a gr ee m en t a t the tim e of the a lle ge d to rt iou s c ondu ct . i. W as the re ava lid

se lf -d et er m inatio n c ontra ct ? Se ne ca arg ue s th at

the nam ed

de fe ndants c oul d no t have be ena ct ing w ith in the sc ope of

F ed er al e m

plo ym en t be ca

use the re is no v al id s el f- de te rm inatio n co ntr ac t. S en ec a as se rt s th at the se lf -d et er m inatio n c ontra ct

w as not pr ope rl y au tho ri ze d by

U SE T ’ s m em

be r tr ibe s. S en ec a ar gue d to the dis tr ic t c ourt tha t the se lf -d et er m inatio n c ontra ct

w as inv al id b ec au se the c ontra ct it se lf did not inc lud e tr iba l r es olu tio ns a

ppr ovi ng o f the c ontra ct . O n a ppe al , S en ec a co nte nds that the contract w as invalid because the tribal resolutio ns provi ded by the defendants as supp orting th e contract pre -date the self- determ ination contract and did not refer specifically

to the contract U SE T and HH S entere d into in October 2001 thatSeneca argues on appe al only

that the re solutions are outdated a nd non-spec ific; he ha s 4 thu s a b an d o n e d h i s ar gum e n tth atth e s e l f - d e t e r m i n at i o nc o n tr a c tw a s n o ts u p p o rt e d b y a re so lut ion . Se e Un ite d St ate s v . Cunn ingham, 1 61 F .3 d 1 34 3, 13 44 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 8) (a

rgume nts not made on appe al ar e aba ndoned). 8 appellee has presented as the governing self-determ ination contract. W e re view 4 ar gum en ts n ot b ef

or e the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or pla in e rr or . U . S. v. Mo ck , 523 F . 3d 1299 , 130 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 8) . B ec au se w e fi nd tha t the r es olu tio ns d o su ppor t the contract, we find no plain err or. Fo r a se lf -d et er m inatio n c ontra ct

to be va lid , it

m ust be m ad e “ uponr eque st b y any I n d i a n tr i b e b y tr i b a l r e s o l u t i o n , ” an dmu s tb e au th o r i z e db y “ an Indian tribe.” 25 U. S. C. §§ 45 0f(a) (1), 450f(a)(2). It is, therefor e, not necessary for ea ch and every US ET m em

ber tribe to provide a resolution s uppo rting the selfdeterm ination contract; it is enough if one m em ber tribe did so. U SE T pr ovid ed num erous resolution s in sup port of contracts betwe en itself and the U. S. gove rn m en t. Although not specifically drafted in re fere nce to the Oc tober 2001 selfdeterm ination contract at issue here , these r esolutio ns refer to and autho rize co ntr ac ts b etw ee n U SE T and the U . S. gov er nm en t e xpl ic itl y

f or H ea lth In fo rm at io n Off

ic e p ro gr am s wi th Ind ia n Hea lt h S erv ic es of t he type atis su e h ere. T he se r es olu tio ns are not ti m e- re str ic te d no r lim ite d to asin gle c ontra ct , and the9

re sol uti ons state that the y “ co nti nue unt il re sc ind ed ” an d r eque st “ co ntr ac tin g” w ithH H S/ IH S rathe r than r eque sti ng o ne spe ci fi c co ntr ac t. W e fi nd tha t the se re sol uti ons thu s su

ppor t the O ct obe r 2001 se lf

-d et er m inatio n c ontra ct

f or H H S/ IH S H ea lthpr ogr am s.

ii. W ere the nam ed defendants acting within the scope of the selfdeterm ination contract w hen Seneca’ s claim s arose? In this case, we are presented with an em ploy er that operate s under dual pur pose s. T he U SE T ope rate s a s aF ed er al c ontra ct or und er c er ta in c ir cum stanc es , but a lso appe ar s to have se parate and d ist inc t r es pons ibi lit ie s a s ar ep re se ntativ e of num er ous In dian tr ibe s. T he que sti on b ef or e us i s w he the r, a t the ti m e of the events givi ng rise to this cause of a ction, the em ploy ees nam ed as defendants we re acting pursuant to USE T’ s self-deter m ination contract w ith HH S/IH S or whether the y w er e ac tin g in

f urthe ranc e of

U SE T ’ s othe r dut ie s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that the nam ed

de fe ndants w er e ac tin g purs uant t o the self-deter

m ination contract. T he district court noted th at the contract r equired U SE T to “ fa ci lit at e m eanin gf ul c onsu ltatio n be tw ee n a ge nc ie s of [ H H S] and tr ibe s” and tha t U SE T ’ s te sti m ony r eg ar din g th e he al th p ro gr am m ing ne ed s of

the tr iba l c om

m uni ty im pr ove d H H S’ s un de rs tandi ng o f that i ssu e. A ddi tio na lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt no te d th at

the inf orm at ion -g athe ri ng and b udge t f orm ulatio n10

re gard ing w hic h S en ec a co nta ct ed U SE T f el l un de r the “ adm ini str at ive f unc tio ns” necessary to carr y out the self-determ ination contract that w ere delegated to tribal or ganiz at ion s, 25 U . S. C. § 45 0f (a )( 1) . T he c ourt the n he ld tha t, in lig ht o f the co n tra ct ’s p ro v i s i o n th at i tb e c o n s t ru ed l i b er al l y fo r t h e b en ef i to f U SE T, U SE T’s em plo y ee s w er e ac tin g w ith in the sc ope of the se lf -d et er m inatio n c ontra ct , and the re fo re , w ith in the sc ope of the ir F ed er al e m

plo ym en t.

“ T he que sti on o f w he the r a giv ena ct f al ls w ith in the sc ope of

e m plo ym en t is high ly fac t-specific, and turns on the uniqu e circ um stances of the case at bar. ” Bennett v. U nited States, 102 F. 3d 48 6, 489 (11th Cir. 1996). T his findi ng of fact is r ev er sib le onl y

if “ cl earl y e rr one ous. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Z ap at a, 180 F . 3d 1 237, 1240 (11th Cir. 1999). T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat the se nam ed de fe ndants w er e ac tin g pur suant t o th e se lf

-d et er m inatio n c ontra ct

be tw ee n th e U . S. gov er

nm en t and U SE T w as not

c le ar ly e rr one ous. T he te sti m ony spo ke to the ne ed

f or f undi ng f or tr ibe s to a dm ini ste r he al th p ro gr am s; this kno w le dge is re la te d to U SE T ’ s r ole in adm ini ste ri ng h ea lthpr ogr am s. B ec au se of the c los e co nne ct ionbe tw ee n th e top ic of the te sti m ony

and U SE T ’ s w ork f

or H H S, it w as not c le ar ly e rr one ous to co nc lud e that the pr ep ar at ionof that t es tim ony

w as w ith in the sc ope of

the em ploym ent for H HS .We reviewde novo the district cour t’s dismiss al for la ck of subjec t matter jurisdiction. 5 Br owar d Gar dens Tena

nts Ass’n v. EPA, 311 F.3d 1066, 1072 (11th Cir. 2002).

11 Furthe rm or e, e ve n if

the te sti m ony

it se lf f el l ou tsi de of

the c ontra ct , the co nduc t tha t a ct

ua lly le d to the tor

t c la im s—the w ri tin g of

c om pla int le tte rs to Sen eca’s s up erv is or

—fa ll s wi th in sco pe of t he sel f-d et erm in at io n c on tra ct . US ET’s s ec o n dl et t ert o Se n ec a’s s up er v i s o r s t at ed re p ea t ed l y t h at Se n ec a’s be ha vi orwas p rev en ti ng USET from work in g c oo pe rat iv el y

wit h ATSDR. Reg ard le ss of t he co nt ex t i n wh ic h S en eca wa s al le ge dl y ha ras si ng USET em plo y ee s, the nam ed

de fe ndants f

el t a ne ed to co m pla in a bout S en ec a in o rd er

to pr es er ve the w orkin g r el at ion shi p w ithA T SD R— a re la tio nshi p th at e xis ts b ec au se of the se lf -d et er m inatio n c ontra ct . C. Did Se ne ca Exha us t His Remed ie s Un de r t he FTCA? Seneca also disp utes that he failed to exhaust hi s adm inistrative rem edies under the FT CA even if the U nited States is the proper defendant. W e disagree. 5 A tor t c la im m ay not be br ough t a ga ins t the U nit ed S ta te s “ unl es s th e cl ai m an t sh al l have f

ir st p re se nte d th e cl ai m

to the appr opr ia te F ed er al a ge nc y and his c la im sha ll ha ve be enf

ina lly de nie d by

the a ge nc y

in w ri tin g and s en t by ce rt if ie d or r eg ist er ed

m ai l. ” 28 U . S. C. § 26 75( a) . T his r equir em en t i s12

j ur isd ic tio na l, and f

ai lur e to p ro vid e thi s no tic e pr ev en ts j udi ci al r ev ie wof the claim . Da lrym

ple v. U nited States, 460 F. 3d 13 18, 1324 (11t h Cir. 2006 ). Seneca asserts that the aff

idavit he sub m itted as part of his internal grievance to A TS DR, as his em ploy er, challenging h is reassignm ent served as ad equa te not ic e unde r the F T CA . T he a ff idavit state d th at

the c om pla int s m ad e ag ai nst him in U SE T ’ s le tte rs w er e fa lse , and S en ec a ar gue s th at the a ff idavit thereby satisfies the FT CA notice requirem ent. T his affidavit did no t, howe ver,

“ p re s en t ” S en ec a’s t o rt cl ai m s ag ai n s tATS DR as th e e m

p l o yer o f U SE T’s em plo y ee s w ho h ad

a lle ge dly c om m itt ed tor ts a ga ins t S en ec a; S en ec a’ s a ff idavit did not r ef er to an y of the tor ts e num er at ed

in his c om

pla int . I nst ea d, the a ff

idavit fo cu se d onhis dis ple as ur e at be ing r ea ssi gne d by

his e m plo y er on the ba sis of

the em plo y er ’ s in ve sti ga tio n in to c om pla int s a bout his c ondu ct . T he a ff

idavit sa id noth ing abou t tortious conduct byAT SD R em ploy ees, or by

the Feder al gove rn m en t thr oughvic ar iou s li ab ili ty , nor m en tio n any

int en tio n by

S en ec a to pursue a tort claim

on that basis . This does not satis fy the FT CA notice re qui re m en t. CON CLU SION For the fore goin g reasons, the district court’ s subs titutio n of the United St at es a s th e de fe ndant and the sub se que nt d ism iss al of thi s c as e is AF FIRMED .