Document: 508 U.S. 106 113 S.Ct. 1980 124 L.Ed.2d 21 William McNEIL, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 92-6033. Argued April 19, 1993. Decided May 17, Syllabus * Four months after petitioner McNeil, proceeding without counsel, filed this Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit for money damages arising from his alleged injury by the United States Public Health Service, he submitted a claim such to Department of and Human Services, which promptly denied claim. The District Court subsequently dismissed McNeil's complaint as premature under an FTCA provision, 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), requires that claimant exhaust administrative remedies before bringing suit. Appeals affirmed, although decisions in other Circuits have permitted prematurely action proceed if no substantial progress has taken place litigation are exhausted. Held: An may not be maintained when failed prior filing suit, but did so was made litigation. Section 2675(a)'s unambiguous text—which commands "action shall instituted . unless first presented appropriate agency been finally agency" rejection contention timely because it commenced lodged with Court. too early, since had previously Service nor "finally denied" agency. Also unpersuasive is argument should viewed having "instituted" on date denied. In its statutory context, normal interpretation word "institute" synonymous words "begin" "commence." most natural reading statute indicates Congress intended require complete exhaustion Executive invocation judicial process. Moreover, given clarity text, certainly "trap unwary." Pp. ____. 964 F.2d 647, affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Allen E. Shoenberger, Chicago, IL, appointed Court, petitioner. K. Kelley, Washington, DC, pro hac vice, special leave respondent. Justice STEVENS 1 Torts provides upon against damages" exhausted remedies.1 question whether 2 On March 6, 1989, petitioner, Northern Illinois, alleging caused him serious injuries while "conducting human research experimentation prisoners" custody Illinois Corrections. He invoked federal court's jurisdiction prayed judgment $20 million. App. 3-7. 3 later, July 7, Services.2 21, 1989. August sent letter enclosing copy Department's denial affidavit support earlier motion appointment counsel. Petitioner asked court accept "as proper request, whereas plaintiff can properly commence legal accordingly." Id., at 10. 4 For reasons entirely clear, served petitioner's until 30, 1990.3 2. September 1990, moved dismiss ground barred 6-month limitation.4 based assumption 15, paid fees, more than six response motion, actually Clerk assigned docket number. 5 accepted 1989 operative filing, nonetheless granted Government's dismiss. Petitioner's out-of-time, reasoned, but, rather, premature. concluded lacked entertain "commenced satisfaction requirement 2675(a)." 21. 6 Seventh Circuit explained: 7 "According 2401(b), tort must 'begun within mailing notice final presented.' mailed McNeil between then January begin action. early. This left two options. Perhaps document loitered docket, springing into force acted. Or perhaps request counsel during six-month period, marks real 'beginning' district rejected both options, assistance court, renews arguments here. 8 9 "March linger, awaiting Unless began fresh loses." 648-649 (1992). 10 reviewed materials committed plain error refusing construe them new action.5 11 Because permit exhausted, see Kubrick v. States, 581 1092, 1098 (CA3 1978), reversed grounds, 444 111, 100 352, 62 259 (1979), Celestine Veterans Administration Hospital, 746 1360, 1363 (CA8 1984),6 we certiorari resolve conflict. 506 ----, 1036, 122 347 (1993). II 12 As case comes us, assume correctly held nothing done constituted commencement narrow us either or 13 text possibility. command writing certified registered mail" unambiguous. We free rewrite text. neither held, 14 does speak equal subsequent receipt formal might treated event argues used n. 1, supra, "begun" 4, "commence" certain statutes rules. See, e.g., Hallstrom Tillamook County, 493 20, 110 304, 107 237 (1989). suggests occurrence events necessary predicates jurisdiction—namely, construction, argues, consistent underlying purpose 2675(a): long time remedies, will fair opportunity investigate possibly settle parties burden costly time-consuming litigation.7 15 find unpersuasive. think Every imposes some system8 defense actions. Although slight individual case, governs processing vast multitude claims. interest orderly administration body best adherence straight-forward command. 16 It doubt true there cases litigant make fatal procedural error, risk lawyer unable understand virtually nonexistent. Our rules procedure normally conducted lawyers. While insisted pleadings prepared prisoners who do access liberally construed, Haines Kerner, 404 519, 92 594, 30 652 (1972); Estelle Gamble, 429 97, 106, 97 285, 292, 50 251 (1976),9 give way unique circumstance incarceration, Houston Lack, 487 266, 108 2379, 101 245 (1988) (pro se prisoner's appeal deemed delivery prison authorities), never suggested ordinary civil interpreted excuse mistakes those counsel.10 noted before, "in run, experience teaches strict requirements specified legislature guarantee evenhanded law." Mohasco Corp. Silver, 447 807, 826, 2486, 2497, 65 532 (1980). 17 bars claimants they their remedies. heed clear command, 18 Affirmed. syllabus constitutes part Reporter Decisions convenience reader. See Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, L.Ed. 499. Title 2675(a) provides, pertinent part: "An loss property personal death negligent wrongful act omission any employee Government acting scope office employment, mail. failure disposition shall, option thereafter, purposes section." sought $500,000 claim, million Pursuant 2675(b), seeking "any sum excess amount agency." That is, denied, would limited recovery $500,000. Entries indicate forma pauperis, later ultimately fee file pauperis moot. all events, ordered service effected Marshal "because incarcerated se." 1. 2401(b) provides: "A forever years accrues begun mailing, mail, presented." dissent, Judge Ripple expressed raised issue appeal, F.2d, 649, "clear plaintiff, prisoner se, attempted refile claim." 649. grant encompass therefore express correctness Appeals' ruling issue. Fifth Ninth agree position case. Gregory Mitchell, 634 199, 204 (CA5 1981); Reynolds 748 291, 292 1984); Jerves 966 517, 521 (CA9 1992). Prior 1966, presenting claims agencies only authority 1946, ch. 753, §§ 403(a), 420, 60 Stat. 843, 845. majority were settled trial, proposed amend "requir[e] consideration possible settlement could instituted. considered whose employee's activity allegedly damage. information concerning gave rise Since one directly concerned, expected found meritorious quickly need expensive litigation." S.Rep. 1327, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., (1966), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 2515, 2517. Senate Judiciary Committee further "the improvements contemplated [the 1966 amendments] benefit private litigants, also beneficial courts, agencies, itself." 2, p. 2516. Even concedes least objective Amendments "reduce unnecessary congestion courts," 2518. Brief 24. Again, construed instituting us. 5, supra. Indeed, recognized systemic party represented independent even lawyer. Kay Ehrler, --- 111 1435, 486 (1991).

Category: 8