Smith v. United States

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60930
Summary Calendar
ROBERT SMITH; MARTHA J. SMITH,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:98-CV-249-S-D
--------------------
December 19, 2000
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert and Martha Smith appeal from the district court's
dismissal of their claims against the United States as untimely
pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Finding no error after a
de novo review of the record, we affirm.
The Smiths argue that their claims should not have been
dismissed because the original defendant in this action, Trina
Hamlin, maintained private liability insurance with the Farm Bureau
Insurance Company on the car she was driving at the time of the
accident which gave rise to this suit. The Smiths contend that
Farm Bureau should have been joined as a defendant. The district
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
court did not err in denying the Smiths' motion to join the
liability insurer. The Federal Tort Claims Act provides an
exclusive remedy against the United States for a plaintiff seeking
damages due to the negligence of a federal employee acting within
the scope of her employment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1).
The Smiths also argue that the district court erred in
determining that Hamlin was a federal employee rather than an
independent contractor. The evidence shows, however, that Hamlin
was a federal employee. See Rodriguez v. Sarabyn, 129 F.3d 760,
765 (5th Cir. 1997).
Finally, the Smiths argue that they should be exempt from
the FTCA's exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement and
its requirement that claims be filed within two years of accrual
because they did not know Hamlin was a federal employee. The FTCA
is clear that a district court's subject-matter jurisdiction over
an FTCA claim is conditioned upon the claimant's compliance with
§ 2675(a), requiring the claimant to first present her claim to the
appropriate federal agency. See Flory v. United States, 138 F.3d
157, 159 (5th Cir. 1998). Because the Smiths failed to comply with
this requirement the district court lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction, over their claims.1
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
1
Further, even if equitable tolling could apply to the presentment
requirement, the record contains a letter from a Farm Bureau claims adjuster
to appellants’ attorney, in January 1996, informing him that Hamlin was a
postal employee. Thus, the Smiths knew of her status within a year following
the accident and should not be immune from FTCA requirements.
2
3