Bettis v. Grijalva

Background

Zubearu Bettis originally brought this action against Lieutenant Roberto Grijalva, Jermaine Darden, Warden Marti Licon-Vitale, Cody Kizzier, Yoon Kang, and Angelo Jordan, identified as current or former Bureau of Prisons employees. He alleged the use of excessive force at a federal detention facility. In an earlier decision, the court dismissed the original complaint because a damages remedy was not available for the constitutional claims alleged, but allowed Bettis to amend if he could correct the defects.

Bettis filed an amended complaint naming the United States as the only defendant and asserting a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), or alternatively sought summary judgment.

Federal Tort Claims Act exhaustion

The Federal Tort Claims Act allows certain tort claims against the United States, which generally has immunity from lawsuits unless it has agreed to be sued. Before filing an action under the Act, a claimant must present a written claim to the appropriate federal agency. The claim must include a specific amount of money damages, known as a sum certain. The claimant must also wait until the agency denies the claim in writing, or until six months pass without a final decision.

Bettis’s amended complaint did not allege that he had submitted a written damages claim for a specific amount before filing suit. It described his efforts to use the Bureau of Prisons grievance process, including requests for BP-8 and BP-9 forms, but the court concluded that these allegations did not show that he had presented an administrative claim meeting the Federal Tort Claims Act’s requirements. The court also noted that the BP forms were part of the Bureau of Prisons inmate-grievance process, not forms for submitting a Federal Tort Claims Act damages claim.

Bettis later submitted a Standard Form 95 to the Bureau of Prisons on August 31, 2023, seeking $10,000 for at least some of the alleged conduct. The Bureau of Prisons denied that claim on October 3, 2023, after Bettis filed the amended complaint. Thus, exhaustion was incomplete both when the original action was filed and when the amended complaint was filed.

Court’s reasoning

The court treated the exhaustion requirement as jurisdictional, meaning that the court lacked legal authority to hear the Federal Tort Claims Act claim unless Bettis satisfied it before filing. The court relied on Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent requiring complete exhaustion before a Federal Tort Claims Act action begins. Later exhaustion could not cure a lawsuit that was filed prematurely; the plaintiff would have to file a new action if otherwise permitted.

The court did not decide whether the administrative claim was submitted within the Federal Tort Claims Act’s two-year deadline. It also rejected Bettis’s argument that his original court complaint should itself count as the administrative claim, because that complaint was filed in court rather than presented to the Bureau of Prisons.

Disposition

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted the Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment. The court did not reach the merits of Bettis’s allegations or rule on the Government’s alternative request for summary judgment.