Roberts v. United States Postal Service
1:10-cv-01004
D. Colo.Dec 21, 2010Background
- Plaintiff Norman Roberts filed an FTCA tort action in the District of Colorado arising from a 2008 incident at a Colorado post office.
- Defendant United States Postal Service moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
- An administrative denial was mailed September 3, 2009, triggering a six-month window to sue by March 3, 2010, if no reconsideration occurred.
- Plaintiff’s counsel asserted a March 1, 2010 request for reconsideration; an April 30, 2010 letter purportedly attached that request, which Defendant did not see until May 3, 2010.
- Defendant denied reconsideration on May 3, 2010 and Plaintiff filed suit the same day; the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the case.
- The court also ruled it could not grant a retroactive extension of time and denied Plaintiff’s motion for extension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FTCA timing bars jurisdiction | Roberts contends timely reconsideration preserved claim | Untimely filing barred by §2401(b) timing | Yes; jurisdiction lacking due to untimely timing |
| Whether plaintiff timely filed reconsideration | March 1, 2010 reconsideration was timely | No proof of receipt; March 1 not timely filed | No proven timely reconsideration; untimely under FTCA |
| Whether receipt of March 1 letter affects jurisdiction | Letter sent and received; should toll deadline | Receipt not proven; untimely regardless | Receipt not proven; jurisdiction remains lacking |
| Whether court can grant nunc pro tunc extension | Ask for retroactive extension to April 30, 2010 | No jurisdiction to grant extensions where jurisdiction is lacking | Extension denied for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir. 1995) (jurisdictional facts may be proven by extrinsic evidence; Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal uses jurisdictional facts)
- Castaneda v. I.N.S., 23 F.3d 1576 (10th Cir. 1994) (jurisdictional dismissal when no subject matter jurisdiction exists)
- Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906 (10th Cir. 1974) (burden to show existence of subject matter jurisdiction on plaintiff)
- Dahl v. United States, 319 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2003) (timeliness of FTCA notice and suit; jurisdictional bar if not timely)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdiction is prerequisite to any judicial action; lack of jurisdiction ends case)