2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-10-2009 

# Ahmed v . U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4669

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ahme d v . U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1208. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1208Hon. L ouis H. Poll ak, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Ea stern District * of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 4669

M AL I S S A A. AHMED, A p p e llan t,

v. UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

f o rt h e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . N o. 05- 1929 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D enni s M . C avana ugh

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary13, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R and B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udges , and PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: J une 10, 2009)

_____ OP I NI ON

______2

PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge. A ppel l antM al i s s a A . A hm ed appe al s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of her compl ai ntundert he Feder al T or tC l ai m s A ct , 28 U . S. C . § 2671 et s eq. ( “FT C A ”) for fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h t he j ur i s di ct i onal t i m e r equi r ement s of thats t atut e. A s di s cus s ed b e lo w , the D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyd ism iss e d a p p e llan t’s c o m p lain t. I . A ppel l antw as i nvol ved i n an ac ci denton J une 4, 2003 w i t h a vehi cl e dr i ven byan a g e n to f t h e De p a r t me n to f

Ho me l a n d S e c u r i t y , Bu r e a u o f I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Cu s t o ms E nfor cement( “I C E ”) . H ow ever , att he t i m e of the ac ci dent , al l appel l antknew w as t hat vehi cl e w as ow ned byt he fe der al governm ent ; s he coul d noti dent i fyw hatagenc yof the governm entow ned the vehi cl e orempl oy ed the dr i ver . O n J ul y28, 2003, s he fi l ed a c laim u n d e r th e F T C A w ith th e D e p a rtm e n t o f Ju stic e (“ D O J” ), C iv il D iv isio n , T o rts B r anch. O n A ugus t14, 2003, t he D O J s enthercl ai m back, acknow l edgi ng r ece i ptof her cl ai m butr etur ni ng i tt o herbeca us e s he had noti dent i fi ed the pr operagenc yt o w hi ch the c laim sh o u ld b e d ire c ted . O v e r a y e a r la ter , b u t still w ith in th e F T C A ’s tw o -y e a r sta tu te o f lim ita tio n s , s ee 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 0 1 (b ), ap p e llan t ag a in se n t h e r c laim to th e D O J T o rts B r anch, m ai l i ng i ton Sept ember28, 2004. She i ndi cat ed thats he coul d s t i l l noti dent i fy t he appr opr i at e age ncyand r eques t ed thatD O J fi gur e i toutand tr ans ferhercl ai m , ci t i ng a u th o rityth a t a f

e d e ra l ag e n c yh a s a n a f f irm a tiv e d u tyto tra n sf

e r c laim s it w ro n g ly r ece i ves t o t he corr ectagenc y . O n O ct ober26, 2004, D O J s enta l et t ert o I C E . T hi s l et t er3

i nfor m ed I C E t hatD O J had r ece i ved A hm ed’ s cl ai m on O ct ober4 and then l earned that I C E w as i n fac tt he pr operagenc y . D O J not ed i n t he l et t ert hati tw as t r ans ferr i ng t he c laim to IC E . A p p e llan t’s c o u n se l w a s c o p ied o n th is O c to b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 lette r. A p p e llan t fi l ed s ui ti n t he D i s t r i ctC our ton A pr i l 12, 2005. Subse quent l y , I C E deni ed the a d m in is tr a tiv e c la im o n J u ly 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 . I n r es pons e t o appel l ant ’ s compl ai nti n cour t , I C E m oved fordi s m i s s al , ar gui ng t hatappel l anthad fa i l ed t o compl yw i t h t he t i m e r equi r ement s of the FT C A . T he D i s t r i ct C our tagr eed a nd di s m i s s ed the compl ai nt , and appe l l antt i m el yappea l ed. II. T hi s cas e r evol ves ar ound t he det erm i nat i on of the dat e on w hi ch the cl ai m w as pr es ent ed t o t he age ncy . T he dat e mat t er s beca us e the FT C A and i t s i m pl ement i ng re g u la tio n s s e t a s tr ic t tim e lin e f o r t h e f ilin g o f to rt c la im s a g a in s t th e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t. T h e sta tu te p ro v id e s: A n act i on s hal l notbe i ns t i tut ed upon a c l ai m agai ns tt he U ni t ed St at es for m o n e yd a m a g e s f

o r in ju ryo r lo ss o f

p ro p e rtyo r p e rso n a l in ju ryo r d e a th caus ed byt he negl i gentorw r ongful actorom i s s i on of anyempl oy ee of t he G o v e rn m e n t w h ile a c tin g w ith in th e sc o p e o f h is o f f ice o r e m p lo ym e n t, u n les s th e c laim a n t sh a ll h a v e f irst p re se n ted th e c laim to th e a p p ro p ria te Feder al agenc yand hi s cl ai m s hal l have be en fi nal l ydeni ed byt he age ncy i n w r i t i ng and s entbycert i fi ed orr egi s t er ed mai l . T he fa i l ur e of a n agenc y to m a k e f

in a l d isp o sitio n o f

a c laim w ith in six m o n th s a f ter it i s f iled sh a ll, att he opt i on of the cl ai m antanyt i m e ther eaf t er , be dee m ed a f

i nal deni al of t he cl ai m forpurpos es of thi s s ect i on. 2 8 U . S . C . A . § 2 6 7 5 (a). T he s t atut e r equi r es “compl et e exha us t i on” of a dm i ni s t r at i ve r emedi es befor e a4

cl ai m antcan s eek r el i ef i n cour t ; a compl ai ntfi l ed i n cour tbefor e the conc l us i on of the s ix -m o n th p e ri o d in w h ic h th e a g e n c yre v ie w s th e c la im w ill b e d e e m e d p re m a tu re . McN ei lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 508 U . S. 106, 112 ( 1993) . T he s t ar tdat e of the s i x- m ont h per i od i s fur t herdefi ned by28 C . F. R . § 14. 2( b) ( 1) , w hi ch pr ovi des t hata “c l ai m s hal l be present ed . . . as of t he d at e i ti s r ecei ved byt he ap propri at e agen cy . ” T his regul at i on al so i ns t ruct s agenc i es t hatw hen theyr ece i ve cl ai m s w hi ch oughtt o be pr es ent ed t o a d if f e re n t ag e n c y , the re c e iv in g a g e n c y“ sh a ll tra n sf e r it fo rth w ith to th e a p p ro p ria te agenc y , i f the pr operagenc ycan be i dent i fi ed fr om t he cl ai m , and advi s e the cl ai m antof t he tr ans fer . ” I

d. T h e re a re f

o u r p o ss ib le d a tes in c o n ten tio n f o r th e d a te o n w h ich a p p e llan t’s c laim w as pr es ent ed t o t he age ncy . A ppel l antar gued bef or e the D i s t r i ctC our t , and ar gues b e f o re th is c o u rt o n a p p e a l, th a t h e r c laim w a s p re se n ted to th e a g e n c yb y , at th e late st, O ct ob er 4, 20 04 , t he d at e on w hich i tw as r ecei ved for t he seco nd t i m e byD O J. S he als o ar gues t hathercl ai m coul d have be en fi l ed as ear l yas J ul y28, 2003 ( t he dat e of he r or i gi nal fi l i ng w i t h t he D O J T or t s B r anch) orSept ember28, 2004 ( t he dat e of he rs econd lette r to th e D O J T o rts B ra n c h ). IC E a rg u e s th a t th e c laim w a s n o t ac tu a llyp re se n ted to th e a g e n c yu n til O c to b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , th e d a te o n w h ic h it w a s tr a n s f e rr e d f ro m D O J to IC E . A ppel l antfi l ed hercompl ai nti n t he D i s t r i ctC our ton A pr i l 12, 2005. I f the cl ai m i s t o be re g a rd e d a s h a v in g b e e n p re se n ted o n O c to b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , the A p ril 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 f ili n g w o u ld have be en pr emat ur e, as t he s i x- m ont h agenc yr evi ew per i od w oul d nothave be en5

compl et ed. H ow ever , i f appe l l ant ’ s pr opos ed dat e of O ct ober4, 2004–orone of the ear l i erdat es –i s t he dat e on w hi ch the cl ai m i s deemed t o have be en pr es ent ed t o t he agenc y , t hen the A pr i l 12, 2005 compl ai ntw as notpr emat ur e and s houl d nothave be en di s m i s s ed. In ar gu i ng for a date ear l i er than O ct ob er 26, 20 04 , A hm ed u rges the co urtt o u se t he doctr i ne of c ons t ruct i ve fi l i ng and adoptone of the thr ee da t es s he pr opos es ( J ul y28, 2 0 0 3 ; S e p tem b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 ; o r O c to b e r 4 , 2 0 0 4 ). C o u rts p e rm itt in g c o n stru c tiv e f ili n g in the F T C A co n text h av e larg elyb ee n reso lving situ ati o n s w h ere the g o v ern m en t’ s fa il u re t o t r ans fert he cl ai m l ed t o t he cl ai m ant ’ s fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h the FT C A ’ s s t atut e of lim ita tio n s . See, e. g. , B ukala v. U ni t ed Stat es , 854 F. 2d 201, 204 ( 7t h C i r . 1988) ( perm i t t i ng cons t ruct i ve fi l i ng of compl ai ntw i t h w r ong agenc yw her e age ncydi d not tra n sf e r c laim to a p p ro p ria te a g e n c yw ith in th e tw o -y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s). T h a t is nott he s i tuat i on her e, w her e the governm entdi d notactnegl i gent l yi n i t s t r eatm entof a p p e lla n t’ s c la im a n d in s te a d p ro m p tly tra n s f e rr e d th e c la im to th e a p p ro p ri a te a g e n c y . T hough t he l et t erof Sept ember28, 2004 ( a l et t erw r i t t en byappel l ant ’ s couns el ’ s “l egal as s i s t ant ”) as s er t ed thati tcons t i tut ed a c l ai m and opene d t he s i x- m ont h agenc yr evi ew p e ri o d , th is a s s e rt io n ig n o re d a p p e lla n t’ s d u ty to p re s e n t th e c la im to th e p ro p e r a g e n c y . M or eover , t he governm entdi d r es pond t o t he Sept ember28, 2004 l et t er . I n a l et t erdat ed O ct ober26, 2004 and s entt o appel l ant ’ s couns el , t he D O J T or t s B r anch advi s ed thatappel l ant ’ s cl ai m w as bei ng t r ans ferr ed t o I C E as of thatdat e; t hus , as of6

O ct ober26, 2004 i ts houl d have be en appa r entt o couns el t hatappel l ant ’ s cl ai m had not b e e n p re se n ted to th e a p p ro p ria te a g e n c yb e f o re th a t d a te. T h e re f

o re , the six -m o n th peri od had no ty etcl osed w hen app el l ant’ s com plai nt w as fi l ed o n A pri l 12 , 20 05 . A s a re s u lt, th e c o m p la in t w a s p re m a tu re , c o n tr a v e n in g th e re q u ir e m e n ts o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 6 7 5 (a ). T h e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d th e c o m p lain t. III . Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , t he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.