Ortiz-Rivera v. United States
891 F.3d 20
1st Cir.2018Background
- Decedent died July 27, 2012; FTCA two‑year presentment period ran through July 28, 2014.
- Plaintiffs first mailed an administrative tort notice to the FBI (received June 10, 2014); FBI told them ICE was the proper agency.
- Plaintiffs attempted to mail to a Puerto Rico DHS address on July 2, 2014; that mailing was returned undeliverable July 20.
- Plaintiffs sent certified mail to ICE on July 24, 2014; USPS tracking shows arrival at ICE facility by 7:22 p.m. on July 28, 2014 but lists “no authorized recipient” and indicates pickup available the next day.
- ICE did not take actual possession until August 1, 2014 and later denied the administrative claim (letter dated December 4, 2014).
- Plaintiffs sued May 28, 2015. District Court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for failure to present a timely administrative claim; plaintiffs sought equitable tolling only in a post‑judgment motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency "receives" a claim under 28 C.F.R. §14.2(a) when USPS attempts delivery on the last day but no agency employee accepts it | Arrival at agency (USPS on site by 7:22pm on deadline) constituted agency receipt | Receipt requires actual agency possession/acceptance; mailing or attempted delivery is insufficient | Court vacated dismissal and remanded for factual development on whether attempted delivery constituted receipt under §14.2(a) |
| Whether agency denial without citing untimeliness estops government from raising untimeliness later | ICE denial shows agency deemed claim timely; government cannot now assert untimeliness | No estoppel: §2401(b) is not subject to administrative‑order‑style review and agency need not list timeliness to preserve the defense | Court rejected plaintiffs’ estoppel theory and found the argument undeveloped/waived in part; not a bar to the government asserting untimeliness on remand |
| Whether FBI should have transferred claim to ICE under 28 C.F.R. §14.2(b), making FBI’s receipt timely presentment | Plaintiffs argue FBI’s receipt should count because FBI failed to transfer timely to ICE | Government contends plaintiffs never raised/pressed this below; waived | Court treats the transfer argument as waived for failure to develop below; cannot salvage dismissal now |
| Whether the two‑year presentment period should be equitably tolled for plaintiffs’ difficulties identifying the correct agency | Plaintiffs: diligence hindered by confusion over correct agency and earlier misdirected mailings; equitable tolling warranted | Government: no timely tolling claim made below; no extraordinary circumstances shown | Court affirmed denial of tolling as not raised before judgment and district court did not abuse discretion in refusing reconsideration; remand focuses on receipt issue instead |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (FTCA presentment time bar is claims‑processing, not jurisdictional)
- Lombardo v. United States, 241 U.S. 73 (1916) (mail deposit does not equal filing/receipt for statutory deadlines)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) (review of administrative orders limited to grounds relied on by agency)
- Holloway v. United States, 845 F.3d 487 (1st Cir. 2017) (standard for converting Rule 12(b)(1) motion or review of jurisdictional dismissal)
- Delaney v. Matesanz, 264 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2001) (burden and discretion in equitable tolling analysis)