Lequieu v. US Post Office - Bonners Ferry, 2:16-cv-00137

Plaintiff Sandra Lequieu sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for an accident on January 11, 2013, naming the USPS and individual defendants.
The Court initially dismissed the case for failure to state a claim because it appeared Lequieu had not timely filed an administrative FTCA claim.
Lequieu filed a Motion for Reconsideration and attached two USPS letters: an acknowledgment of receipt of her FTCA claim (dated January 9, 2015) and a final denial (dated October 26, 2015).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), an FTCA claimant must present an administrative claim within two years of accrual and, if denied, file suit within six months of the denial.
Because the USPS did not issue a final decision within six months of its January 9, 2015 acknowledgment, the statutory timeline extended; the USPS’s October 26, 2015 denial effectively reset the six‑month filing window, making Lequieu’s April 1, 2016 suit timely.
Lequieu also renewed a request for appointment of counsel based on cognitive impairments from her alleged injuries; the Court found exceptional circumstances and will request counsel on her behalf.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lequieu timely exhausted FTCA administrative remedies	Lequieu’s FTCA claim was acknowledged Jan 9, 2015 and denied Oct 26, 2015; USPS letter extended the filing window, so her Apr 1, 2016 suit is timely	USPS position (as inferred from initial dismissal) was that Lequieu had not timely filed administrative claim or suit	Court held the USPS acknowledgment and later denial made Lequieu’s suit timely and reopened the case
Whether the Court may reconsider its dismissal under Rules 59/60	Lequieu moved for reconsideration after dismissal; Court may hear such motions because prior Order was a final judgment	N/A	Court treated the motion as appropriate and granted reconsideration
Whether the Court should appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)	Lequieu asserted cognitive deficits (memory loss, headaches) impairing her ability to proceed pro se	Generally no right to counsel in civil cases; appointment requires exceptional circumstances	Court found exceptional circumstances and will request (but cannot compel) counsel for Lequieu
Whether plaintiff must follow ordinary procedural rules after reopening	Lequieu sought guidance on proceeding	Defendants not argued on this procedural point in order	Court advised Lequieu she remains bound by the same procedural rules as represented parties and may obtain self‑help resources from the court

United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2000) (Rule 59 and 60 motions apply only to final judgments)
Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2009) (appointment of counsel in civil cases requires exceptional circumstances)
United States v. Merrill, 746 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1984) (pro se litigants are subject to the same procedural rules as represented parties)