454 F. App'x 238
5th Cir.2011Background
- Al-Dahir filed a pro se complaint on January 22, 2008 asserting twenty claims against twelve defendants; the United States was not named.
- Amendments added plaintiffs, defendants, and FTCA-based claims, but the FTCA amendment was filed outside the limitations period.
- Administrative FTCA claims were presented to the FBI before filing and denied with notice that suit must be filed within six months.
- The third amended complaint (October 30, 2009) asserted FTCA claims against the United States for conversion, assault, battery, false imprisonment, and abuse of process.
- The district court dismissed the remaining FTCA claims as untimely, ruling they did not relate back under Rule 15(c) or within the FTCA deadline.
- Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s Rule 15(c) relation-back ruling and dismissal of FTCA claims against the United States.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do FTCA claims relate back under Rule 15(c) to the original pleading? | Al-Dahir argues the United States should be timely due to relation back. | United States contends no relation back because no notice within 4(m) and no initial naming. | No, relation back was not shown. |
| Did the United States have notice within 4(m) that it would have been named but for a mistake? | Al-Dahir contends notice existed via the original complaint implying misidentification. | United States argues there was no mistake or adequate notice. | Not satisfied; notice was not provided within 4(m). |
| Could the original complaint’s claims constitute notice that the United States was the proper defendant for FTCA claims? | Al-Dahir asserts FTCA-related claims were inherently present. | United States argues original claims were not FTCA claims and did not imply misidentification. | Insufficient to show notice of misidentification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 130 S. Ct. 2485 (S. Ct. 2010) (relates back turns on what defendant should have understood about plaintiff’s intent)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (U.S. 1996) (sovereign immunity and scope of FTCA waiver; strict construction for sovereign)
- Spotts v. United States, 613 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard of de novo review for Rule 15(c) relation-back issues)
- McLaurin v. United States, 392 F.3d 774 (5th Cir. 2004) (FTCA exclusive remedy; §2679(b)(1) context; proper defendant)
- Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2008) (amendments relating back when United States is the proper defendant)
- Affiliated Professional Home Health Care Agency v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 1999) (sovereign immunity; civil-rights suits often barred against United States)