Ruchert et al v. Nez Perce Tribe et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7 ) is GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. A separate judgment will issue in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
DENNIS RUCHERT and CHERYL
RUCHERT a/k/a/ CHERYL YOUNG,
husband and wife,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00413-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
JOHN PETE WILLIAMSON and JANE
DOE WILLIAMSON, husband and wife;
NEZ PERCE TRIBAL POLICE; and
NEZ PERCE TRIBE,
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction (Dkt. 7). The motion is fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons explained
below, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims.
This negligence action arises from a motor vehicle collision on March 27, 2014,
involving Plaintiffs Dennis Ruchert and Cheryl Ruchert and Defendant John Pete
Williamson, an employee of the Nez Perce Tribal Police Department. On March 8, 2016,
Plaintiffs filed suit in state court, alleging that the collision was caused by Williamson’s
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
negligence and seeking damages for personal injuries and property damage. Defendants
had the action removed to this Court on September 14, 2016. See Dkt. 3-2.
Soon thereafter, the United States filed the present Motion to Dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 7. The United States Attorney for the District of Idaho,
on behalf of the Attorney General, filed a certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1)
stating that Williamson was acting within the scope of his employment with the Nez
Perce Tribal Police Department at the time of the accident. See Certification of United
States Attorney Wendy J. Olson at 2, Dkt. 7-2. The certification also attests that
Defendants Williamson, Nez Perce Tribal Police, and Nez Perce Tribe were performing
authorized functions under the tribe’s funding contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs
pursuant to the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”),
Pub. L. 101–512 § 314, 25 U.S.C. § 450f. Accordingly, the United States argues that it
must be substituted as the sole named defendant in this action and that Plaintiffs’
exclusive remedy lies under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2679.
Because Plaintiffs failed to file an administrative tort claim with Williamson’s employing
agency prior to filing suit, as required by the FTCA, the United States argues that this
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear their claims.
Overview of Federal Tort Claims Act
The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671–2680, waives the United
States’ sovereign immunity for “certain torts of federal employees acting within the scope
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
of their employment.” See United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814 (1976) (citing 28
U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). As defined in the FTCA, an “employee of the government” includes
(1) “officers or employees of any federal agency . . . and persons acting on behalf of a
federal agency in an official capacity, temporarily or permanently in the service of the
United States, whether with or without compensation.” 28 U.S.C. § 2671.
Employees of a tribe or tribal organization may be deemed “federal employees”
for purposes of the FTCA when acting pursuant to a contract authorized by the Indian
Self–Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (“ISDEAA”). See Pub. L.
101–512, 25 U.S.C. § 450f. The ISDEAA created a system by which tribes could take
over the administration of programs or services to Indian populations that otherwise
would be provided by the Federal government. See Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla &
Cupeño Indians v. Jewell, 729 F.3d 1025, 1033 (9th Cir. 2013). Congress extended the
FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity to claims “resulting from the performance of
functions” under ISDEAA “contract[s], grant agreement[s], or cooperative
agreement[s].” 25 U.S.C. § 450f. However, this waiver of sovereign immunity is limited:
[A]n Indian tribe, tribal organization or Indian contractor is deemed hereafter to be
part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . while carrying out any such contract or
agreement and its employees are deemed employees of the Bureau . . . while
acting within the scope of their employment in carrying out the contract or
The FTCA empowers the Attorney General to certify that a federal employee sued
for wrongful or negligent conduct “was acting within the scope of his office or
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose.” § 2679(d)(1). Upon
such certification, the action “shall be deemed an action against the United States under
the provisions of [the FTCA], and the United States shall be substituted as the party
defendant.” Id.; see also Walker v. Chugachmiut, 46 F. App’x 421, 424 (9th Cir. 2002)
(citation omitted) (“Once certification is given in a civil action, the [FTCA] mandates . . .
substitution of the United States as the defendant.”). “The Attorney General’s decision
regarding scope of employment certification is conclusive unless challenged.” See Green
v. Hall, 8 F.3d 695, 698 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1)–(4)).
Application of the Federal Tort Claims Act
The United States Attorney for the District of Idaho certified, on behalf of the
Attorney General, that Defendant John Williamson was acting within the course and
scope of his employment with the Nez Perce Tribal Police Department during the
relevant time period. See Certification of United States Attorney Wendy J. Olson, Dkt. 72. The U.S. Attorney also certified that Defendants Williamson, Nez Perce Tribal Police,
and Nez Perce Tribe were performing authorized functions under the Nez Perce Tribe’s
ISDEAA contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Id. Plaintiffs have not challenged
this certification. Accordingly, their Complaint must “be deemed an action against the
United States under the provisions of [the FTCA] . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1).
FTCA’s Administrative Exhaustion Requirement
The FTCA requires a claimant to present an administrative claim to the
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
appropriate federal agency before filing an action in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). A
court action cannot be instituted until the agency has either: (1) made a final denial in
writing, or (2) failed to act within six-months after the administrative claim is filed. Id.
Exhaustion of this administrative proceeding is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Caton v.
United States, 495 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1974).
Because Plaintiffs did not timely present their claims to the Department of Interior
or to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, they have failed to exhaust their administrative
remedies and cannot establish that subject matter jurisdiction is proper. Therefore,
Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Plaintiffs urge the Court to stay this case until they have satisfied the FTCA’s
administrative exhaustion requirement. Because exhaustion is a jurisdictional
prerequisite, a stay is improper. Once a district court determines that it lacks jurisdiction,
the only appropriate action is dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
This position is supported by FTCA case law. In McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S.
106 (1993), for example, the Supreme Court held that a prematurely filed FTCA claim
must be dismissed even if the plaintiff ultimately exhausts his administrative remedies
during the pendency of litigation. Id. at 111–12. The Court added:
Congress intended to require complete exhaustion of Executive remedies before
invocation of the judicial process. Every premature filing of an action under the
FTCA imposes some burden on the judicial system and on the Department of
Justice which must assume the defense of such actions. Although the burden may
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5
be slight in an individual case, the statute governs the processing of a vast
multitude of claims.
Id. at 112 (footnote omitted); see also Plyler v. United States, 900 F.2d 41, 42 (4th Cir.
1990) (“Since the district court had no jurisdiction at the time the action was filed, it
could not obtain jurisdiction by simply not acting on the motion to dismiss until” the
FTCA exhaustion requirement had been met); Gregory v. Mitchell, 634 F.2d 199, 204
(5th Cir. 1981) (concluding that a prematurely-filed FTCA claim must be dismissed and
adding that staying or holding a case in abeyance would only increase court congestion,
spur unnecessary litigation, and slow down the judicial process). Accordingly, the Court
will deny Plaintiffs’ request to stay this litigation.
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7) is GRANTED and this matter is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
A separate judgment will issue in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
DATED: July 21, 2017
B. Lynn Winmill
United States District Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?