Fiorito v. United States
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:22-cv-03055
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Fiorito v. United States, Judge Tostrud denied reconsideration and denied as moot a judicial-notice motion after dismissing tort claims for unpleaded exhaustion.
Michael Fiorito’s Federal Tort Claims Act claims against the United States remained dismissed without prejudice from the earlier order; the reconsideration motion was denied, and his judicial-notice motion was denied as moot.
What happened
In Fiorito v. United States, the court had previously dismissed Michael Fiorito’s claims against the United States without prejudice because he did not plead that he had completed the required administrative process.
Fiorito asked the court to reconsider and submitted Bureau of Prisons claim forms. The court said the forms were available earlier and did not show that the agency had finally denied his claims, which was required before filing the lawsuit.
Judge Tostrud denied the reconsideration request because Fiorito showed no compelling circumstances, and denied as moot his separate request for judicial notice.
The detailed version
- Fiorito v. United States · No. 0:22-cv-03055
- Eric Tostrud
- Aug. 10, 2023
Background
The court had dismissed Michael Fiorito’s Federal Tort Claims Act claims without prejudice on June 8, 2023, because he failed to plead that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. Fiorito was representing himself. He then filed a motion seeking reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), without first obtaining the permission required by the District of Minnesota’s local rules. The court treated the filing as a request for permission to seek reconsideration.
Fiorito also filed a motion asking the court to take judicial notice of materials, including Bureau of Prisons administrative claim forms concerning alleged medical treatment and related tort claims involving his right great toe or ankle. He argued that he had exhausted his administrative remedies and that the government had made false statements about his administrative claims. He also argued that discovery could have helped prove exhaustion.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that exhaustion under the Federal Tort Claims Act is a jurisdictional requirement. Because Fiorito’s claims arose under that Act, he had to plead and prove that he presented his claims to the appropriate federal agency and that the agency finally denied them in writing.
The court found that Fiorito had not pleaded exhaustion. His complaint did not mention a final denial of his claims by the Bureau of Prisons. The court also found that the claim forms he submitted were available when he filed his complaint but were not referenced or supported by pleaded facts. In addition, even if the forms had been included with the complaint, they did not show that the claims had been fully exhausted because filing an administrative claim alone was insufficient; the claim also had to be adjudicated and finally denied.
The court noted discrepancies that cast doubt on the authenticity or legitimacy of one February 1, 2022, claim submission, including its absence from a government record of Fiorito’s administrative claims and apparent inconsistency involving an attached receipt. The court did not resolve those discrepancies because reconsideration was unavailable in any event.
Disposition
The court found no “compelling circumstances” supporting reconsideration of the June 8 dismissal. It therefore DENIED Fiorito’s motion, as construed as a request for permission to file a reconsideration motion. It separately DENIED as moot Fiorito’s motion requesting judicial notice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.