2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-29-2010

Jeff Hause v. USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-2450

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Jeff Hause v. USA" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1440.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1440
 Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for *

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 09-2450

 

JEFF HAUSE,

 Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

On Appeal of a Decision of the United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey (Civ. No. 08-4880)

District Judge: Mary L. Cooper

 

Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

February 2, 2010

Before: McKEE and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges,

and POLLAK, District Judge.

*

(Filed: April 29, 2010)

 

OPINION

 
2.

POLLAK, District Judge

Appellant Jeff Hause appeals the dismissal of his suit for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. The District Court for the District of New Jersey found that Hause failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA),

28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). 

I.

Hause alleges that, on March 3, 2006, while walking outside of the United States

Postal Service (USPS) in Kearny, New Jersey, he slipped and fell due to icy and snowy

conditions. On February 26, 2007, the USPS received a Form-95 notice of tort claim that

incorrectly listed the incident as occurring in “Cranbury Township, New Jersey.” The

USPS denied the claim in a letter dated October 1, 2007, after the USPS’s investigation

turned up no evidence that there had been an accident at the Cranbury USPS facility or

that there was any negligence on the part of the Postal Service. On December 6, 2007,

Hause filed a complaint (“Complaint #1") in the District Court alleging that he slipped

and fell at the Kearny USPS facility. Complaint #1 alleged that Hause had presented

notice of an administrative claim under the FTCA by submission of a Form-95. The

government filed an answer that assumed the accident occurred in Cranbury Township

and that the complaint contained a typographical error. Two days following the filing of

the answer, appellant’s counsel and government counsel had a conversation, during which

they both first became aware that the Form-95 identified the wrong location. The District
3.

Court dismissed Complaint #1 for failure to exhaust since the administrative claim stated

the wrong location. Hause then filed a second complaint (“Complaint #2") which alleged

that service of Complaint #1 was sufficient administrative notice. The District Court

dismissed Complaint #2 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

II.

The standard of review for a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is

plenary. See Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000). The

FTCA requires that, before filing a complaint, a claimant “shall have first presented the

claim to the appropriate Federal agency.” 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The requirement that a

sum-certain claim be first presented to the agency involved is a prerequisite to the federal

courts’ subject matter jurisdiction. White-Squire v. USPS, --- F.3d ----, No. 09-1577,

2010 WL 293048, at *2 (3d Cir. Jan. 27, 2010). In addition, as the FTCA is a waiver of

sovereign immunity by the United States, its requirements are to be strictly construed. 

Roma v. United States, 344 F.3d 352, 362 (3d Cir. 2003). The FTCA does not require

that the claimant’s notice present every theory of liability, but the claimant’s submission

must, at least, “give[] the agency written notice of his or her claim sufficient to enable the

agency to investigate.” Id. However, “[a] plaintiff cannot present one claim to the

agency and then maintain suit on the basis of a different set of facts” Id.

Complaint #1 fails to constitute adequate notice for two reasons. First, complaint

#1 in its allegations states that the Form-95, and not the complaint, was the administrative
4.

notice of the claim. The USPS could not be fairly apprised it was receiving notice in a

document that by its own terms was not the notice of the claim. Second, the purpose of

the notice requirement is to encourage investigation and settlement of claims before legal

proceedings are initiated, thereby reducing the burden on the courts and the government. 

See Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Thus, although her first

complaint may have given the agency ‘notice’ in one sense of the word, it did not give the

agency the timely notice of a live controversy that would have allowed the agency to

investigate administratively and possibly settle the case before it resurfaced in district

court.”). The document that, in the case at bar, initiated proceedings in the District Court

cannot fulfill the requirement of the FTCA that a claimant “shall have first presented”

(emphasis added) the claim to the agency before filing suit.

III.

For the reasons stated, we will affirm the District Court’s order of dismissal.