Smith v. United States Marshals Service
3:23-cv-00056
| D.V.I. | Jul 18, 2024Background
- Elvis Smith, Sr. brought a personal injury suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that two intoxicated Deputy U.S. Marshals yelled racial slurs, choked, and threatened him with a gun when he refused them boarding to a boat he captained.
- Claims were brought for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Thomas Marra, negligent hiring and retention against the U.S. Marshal Service, and negligence against the Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD) and Virgin Islands Port Authority for lack of security.
- The underlying incident occurred on August 12, 2019, but Smith filed his administrative claim with the agency in September 2021 and his civil complaint in December 2022.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred under the FTCA and Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act (VITCA).
- The court considered whether equitable tolling could excuse late filings, including an alleged agreement between Smith and a government attorney to delay accrual of filing deadlines.
- The court converted the motions to summary judgment, as matters outside the pleadings had been presented, and permitted supplemental briefing before issuing a decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were claims timely under FTCA and VITCA statutes of limitations? | Smith claims equitable tolling due to government agreement and claim of not receiving denial letter. | Defendants argue statutes of limitations expired before Smith filed; no agreement to toll and proper notice of denial was given. | Claims are time-barred; statutes of limitations not tolled; judgment for defendants. |
| Was there a tolling agreement excusing late filing? | Smith alleges an oral and written promise by DOJ attorney to delay statute running until after his testimony. | Defendants deny any tolling agreement existed; documentary evidence reflects none. | No binding, documented tolling agreement; equitable tolling does not apply. |
| Did Smith fail to comply with VITCA notice requirements? | Smith asserts mailed certified mail receipts as notice and claims content sufficiency. | Government asserts notice was untimely, lacked required content, and thus is jurisdictionally noncompliant. | Notice insufficient and untimely under VITCA; claims jurisdictionally barred. |
| Was personal service on individual defendants (Marra, Wombacher Estate) effected? | No argument on service based on merits; Smith did not accomplish service. | Defendants: No service within 90 days; summary judgment appropriate. | No service; even if served, claims are time-barred; summary judgment for individual defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380 (3d Cir. 1994) (sets forth test for equitable tolling and its extraordinary nature)
- United States v. Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (2015) (FTCA limitations periods are not jurisdictional and may be equitably tolled)
- Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744 (3d Cir. 2005) (explains standard for equitable tolling in FTCA claims)
- Sconiers v. United States, 896 F.3d 595 (3d Cir. 2018) (FTCA requires strict compliance with both administrative and court filing deadlines)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (equitable tolling may apply to suits against the United States with due diligence)