Lynch v. United States
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-02648
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Lynch v. United States, Judge Roman substituted the United States and dismissed the case without prejudice because Lynch filed his agency claim too late.
Kevin Lynch’s property-damage and emotional-distress action was dismissed; the United States replaced Christine Sitarz as the defendant, and the dismissal did not bar a possible new action meeting the statutory requirements.
What happened
In Lynch v. United States, Kevin Lynch, who was representing himself, alleged that Christine Sitarz, his coworker at the United States Postal Service, damaged or discarded his personal belongings and caused him emotional distress. He originally sought $3,000 in a New York state small-claims court.
The United States asked to replace Sitarz as the defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a law governing certain claims for injuries or property loss caused by federal employees. It also asked the court to dismiss the case. The court accepted Lynch’s late amended complaint and granted the request to substitute the United States.
Judge Nelson S. Roman dismissed the case for lack of authority to hear it because Lynch filed his required administrative claim with the Postal Service after starting the lawsuit. The dismissal was without prejudice to recommencement, and the court explained that a new action might be possible if the statutory requirements were met.
The detailed version
- Lynch v. United States · No. 7:19-cv-02648
- Nelson Roman
- July 19, 2021
Background
Kevin Lynch, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that Christine Sitarz, a colleague at the United States Postal Service, damaged or destroyed his personal property at the Poughquag Post Office between December 20, 2018, and January 14, 2019. The alleged property included holiday decorations, photographs, artwork, and items stored in Lynch’s personal locker. Lynch claimed property loss and severe emotional distress.
Lynch initially filed a small-claims application in New York state court seeking $3,000 in damages. Sitarz removed the matter to federal court. The United States later asked the court to substitute it as the defendant and to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Late-Filed Amended Complaint
The court had given Lynch until June 29, 2020, to file an amended complaint. He did not meet that deadline but later submitted a purported amended complaint in response to the United States’ motion. The court accepted the late filing under Rule 15(a)(2) and treated it as the operative complaint. The court also treated the United States’ motion as seeking dismissal of that amended complaint.
Substitution of the United States
The Federal Tort Claims Act generally makes the United States the proper defendant for money-damage claims based on injury or property loss allegedly caused by a federal employee acting within the scope of employment. The United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York certified that Sitarz was acting within the scope of her Postal Service employment. The court found that Lynch did not dispute that certification and granted the United States’ motion to substitute it for Sitarz.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Administrative Exhaustion
The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act requires a claimant to first present the claim to the appropriate federal agency and receive the agency’s final written denial before filing a lawsuit. The court treated this requirement as jurisdictional, meaning that it determines whether the court has legal authority to hear the case, and stated that the requirement is not excused because a plaintiff is representing himself.
Lynch’s records showed that he filed his administrative claim with the Postal Service on April 20, 2019, after he had filed the state-court action that was later removed. The Postal Service denied the claim on March 23, 2020. The United States also submitted a declaration stating that the Postal Service database showed Lynch’s tort claim as filed on April 23, 2019. The court concluded that the lawsuit was filed before the administrative claim and that a claim filed after the lawsuit began did not establish jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court accepted the late-filed amended complaint, construed the United States’ motion as directed at that complaint, granted the motion to substitute the United States as defendant, and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice to recommencement. The court directed attention to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(5), which may allow a claim to be treated as timely if specified conditions are met after dismissal. The court made no finding that Lynch had exhausted the administrative process and stated that, if he did so, he could then file a substantially similar Federal Tort Claims Act action as a new case rather than continue this one.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.