Fiorito v. United States

Background

Michael Fiorito, representing himself, sued the United States after the case was removed from Minnesota state court. He alleged that the government committed medical malpractice, negligence, and other torts by failing to properly treat conditions involving his “right great toe & knuckle” and right ankle while he was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota.

The government filed a motion asking the court to screen and dismiss the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and alternatively to grant summary judgment under Rule 56. Fiorito filed motions seeking document production, objecting to the government’s request, disputing the need for an expert affidavit, and requesting appointment of counsel for a limited purpose.

Administrative presentment requirement

The court explained that claims against the United States for negligent acts or omissions by federal employees generally must be brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Before filing such a claim in federal court, the claimant must first present it in writing to the appropriate federal agency and obtain the agency’s final denial. The written submission must provide enough information for the agency to investigate and must state the amount of damages sought. The claimant must also present the claim within two years after it accrues.

The court treated this presentment requirement as jurisdictional, meaning that a federal court lacks authority to consider the claim if the requirement was not met. The plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving complete exhaustion of this administrative process.

Why the court dismissed the complaint

Fiorito’s complaint did not allege that he had presented an administrative tort claim or otherwise fulfilled the presentment requirement. He alleged that he had notified prison staff about his pain and difficulty walking through emails, inmate-request forms, and in-person requests for help. The court determined that communications asking prison staff for medical treatment were not the same as presenting a claim for allegedly improper treatment or failure to treat.

The government also submitted evidence from a Justice Department paralegal specialist who searched the Bureau of Prisons database. The search showed that Fiorito had filed 33 administrative claims, including 14 involving the Sandstone facility, but none concerned right-toe pain or right-toe medical treatment. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court also noted in a footnote that Fiorito’s abuse-of-process claim was separately subject to dismissal because the government had not waived its sovereign immunity for that type of claim. The court did not decide the government’s alternative argument that Fiorito failed to comply with Minnesota’s medical-malpractice expert-affidavit requirement because the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction made that issue unnecessary.

Other requests and order

The court rejected Fiorito’s request for discovery to establish jurisdiction. It reasoned that evidence showing whether he had presented an administrative claim was information he should already have, rather than information unavailable to him.

The court granted the government’s motion to screen and dismiss. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It denied as moot Fiorito’s motions to compel documents, object to the government’s motion, challenge the need for an expert affidavit, and obtain counsel. It also denied as moot the government’s request for a new filing restriction because Chief Judge Schiltz had already imposed a filing restriction covering Fiorito’s future litigation in the District of Minnesota.