Barnes v. United States
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 876
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Larry Barnes was tried and convicted for methamphetamine-related offenses; conviction was vacated and he was released after the government discovered fabricated testimony.
- The Barneses presented administrative FTCA claims to BATF on May 20, 2010, and after six months deemed them denied and filed Lawsuit #1 in May 2011.
- While Lawsuit #1 was pending (removed to federal court), BATF issued a formal denial by certified mail on Oct. 25, 2011 stating a §2401(b) six-month filing deadline.
- The district court dismissed Lawsuit #1 without prejudice on March 23, 2012. The Barneses refiled (Lawsuit #2) on Aug. 22, 2012 — nearly four months after §2401(b)’s April 25, 2012 deadline.
- The government moved to dismiss Lawsuit #2 under Rule 12(b)(1) as time-barred by 28 U.S.C. §2401(b); the district court agreed, rejected relation-back, equitable tolling, and equitable estoppel, and dismissed with prejudice.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed that Lawsuit #2 was time-barred, held dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (per Tenth Circuit precedent), but remanded to correct the judgment to a dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does a claimant’s §2675(a) “deemed denial” prevent a later agency final denial from triggering §2401(b)’s six-month limitations? | Barnes: A deemed denial is the "final denial" and precludes a later agency denial from starting §2401(b)’s clock. | Gov: §2675(a) and §2401(b) operate independently; an actual mailing of final denial triggers §2401(b). | Held: §2675(a) governs exhaustion start; §2401(b) governs when suit is too late; a later formal denial triggers §2401(b). |
| 2. Was Lawsuit #2 timely given Lawsuit #1 and the deemed-denial filing? | Barnes: Lawsuit #2 relates back / is timely because they previously filed after deeming denial. | Gov: Formal denial mailed Oct. 25, 2011 started six‑month clock; refile after April 25, 2012 is untimely. | Held: Untimely — Lawsuit #2 filed after §2401(b) deadline. |
| 3. Does failure to comply with §2401(b) deprive courts of subject-matter jurisdiction? | Barnes: §2401(b) should be non‑jurisdictional and subject to equitable doctrines. | Gov: Timeliness is a condition on waiver of sovereign immunity; noncompliance deprives court of jurisdiction. | Held: Under Tenth Circuit precedent, §2401(b) is jurisdictional; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed. |
| 4. Can relation back, equitable tolling, or equitable estoppel save the Barneses’ claim? | Barnes: Relation back to Lawsuit #1, and alternatively equitable tolling/estoppel should apply. | Gov: Relation back inapplicable to a separate refiled suit; equitable doctrines unavailable if jurisdictional and, in any event, not met. | Held: Relation back inapplicable (refiling ≠ amendment). Even assuming tolling/estoppel available, Barneses failed diligence and showed no affirmative government misconduct; doctrines would not save the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (limitations bar may support dismissal where pleadings show untimeliness)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1993) (FTCA exhaustion bars suit until administrative remedies exhausted)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1990) (equitable tolling presumptively applies to suits against the government absent clear congressional intent otherwise)
- Lehman v. United States, 154 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 1998) (agency’s later formal denial can trigger §2401(b) even after a deemed denial)
- Ellison v. United States, 531 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2008) (deemed denial under §2675(a) has effect only for exhaustion; §2401(b) limitation triggered by actual denial)
- Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. en banc 2013) (post‑Auburn Regional holding §2401(b) nonjurisdictional; relevant to circuit split and later cert. review)