NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WENDY HASTINGS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 56643

D.C. No. 3:16

- cv

- 01259

- JM

- JLB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 14, 2019 Pasadena, California

Before: LIPEZ, ** WARDLAW, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Wendy Hastings appeals the district court’s dismissal of her negligence

claim against the United States with prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Kermit V. Lipez, United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAY 30 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

The district court correctly concluded that Hastings ’s claim was time

- barred

and that her operative Second Amended Complaint did not relate back to filing of

her original complaint. Hastings filed her original complaint within the Federal

Tort Claims Act’s six

- month statute of limitations , but amended her complaint to

name the United States as a defendant only after the limitations period expired

.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b ). Unless Hastings’s Second Amended Complaint relates

back to the f

iling of her original complaint , her c laim against the United States is

time

- barred.

To benefit from the relation back doctrine , Hastings must demonstrate

compliance with the government notice provision , which requires that “process

was delivered or mailed to the United States attorney or the United States

attorney ’ s designee, to the Attorney General of the United States, or to the officer

or agency ” within the limitations period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2). 1 We interpret

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) “literally

. ” Miles v. Dep’t of Army , 881 F.2d

777, 782 (9th Cir. 1989). T he plain language of the government notice provision

required Hastings to deliver or mail her original summons and complaint to one of

the enumerated U.S. entities before the six

- month limitations period expired

. However, it is undisputed that the U.S. Attorney received only court

- generated

1 There is no dispute that Hastings satisfied the relation ba ck doctrine’s other requirements, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)( A)
, ( B), and she does not claim that she satisfied the general notice provision
, id

. 15(c)(1)(C)

.3

electronic notice s that Hastings filed her original summons and complaint within

the limitations period

. T he electronic notice s did not contain or attach Hastings’s

original s ummons or complaint . R ather, the U.S. Attorney could access the

original summons or complaint only by cl i cking on a link in the notice and visiting

the court website to view the document. Because the electronic notice s to the U.S.

Attorney did not d eliver
, mail
, or even attach Hastings’s original summons and

complaint
, the district court correctly concluded that the relation back doctrine

does not apply

.

A FFIRM

.