Linda Charlene Jackson, Rep., Est. of George Jackson, Jr. v. United States, 730 F.2d 808 (D.C. Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Linda Charlene Jackson, Rep., Est. of George Jackson, Jr. v. United States, 730 F.2d 808 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
70 citation events (51 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ngono v. Moshannon Valley Corr. Ctr., No. 3:19-cv-00104 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2021)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 809 Administrative claim as jurisdictional prerequisite to FTCA suit54 citing casesSuch a[n administrative] claim is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite to a [Federal Tort Claims Act] suit against the United States.3 citing courts put it this way · 46 listed here
  • Ngono v. Moshannon Valley Corr. Ctr., No. 3:19-cv-00104 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2021).
    (Such a[n administrative] claim is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite to a [Federal Tort Claims Act] suit against the United States.)
  • Medina v. United States, No. 2020-0327 (D.D.C. Feb. 13, 2020).published
    (Such a[n administrative] claim is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite to a[n FTCA] suit against the United States.)
  • Aguirre v. United States, No. 2009-0922 (D.D.C. May 19, 2009).published
    (Such a[n administrative] claim is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite to a[n FTCA] suit against the United States.)
  • Tay v. Obama, No. 2014-1109 (D.D.C. June 30, 2014).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Caudle v. U.S. Marshal Cell Block, No. 2013-0399 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2014).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • ['Turner v. United States Parole Comm'n'], No. 2014-0448 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2014).published
    Cir. 1987); jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Montano Elec. Contractor v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. 675 (Fed. Cl. 2014).published
    See Kokotis v. United States Postal Service, 223 F.3d 275, 278-79 (4th Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809-10 (D.C.Cir.1984); Gonzales v. United States Postal Service, 543 F.Supp. 838, 839 (N…
  • Kempo v. United States, No. 2014-0225 (D.D.C. Feb. 18, 2014).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Barnett v. United States, 987 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.D.C. 2013).published
    See GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 917-20 (D.C.Cir.1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.Cir.1984); Stokes v. U.S. Postal Service, 937 F.Supp. 11, 14 (D.D.C.1996).
  • Brodzki v. United States, No. 2013-1630 (D.D.C. Oct. 24, 2013).published
    Cir. 1987); jackson v. United Staz‘es, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
Show 36 more citing cases
  • Brown v. Fbi, No. 2013-0845 (D.D.C. June 6, 2013).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United Stales, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Jones v. Dep't of Just., No. 2013-0161 (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 2013).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson 3 v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Young v. Federa Bureau of Prisons, No. 2012-1886 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2012).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Demartino v. United States Copyright Off., No. 2012-1256 (D.D.C. July 31, 2012).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Brodzki v. United States, No. 2012-0898 (D.D.C. June 5, 2012).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Brodzki v. United States, No. 2012-0164 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2012).published
    Cir. 1987); jackson v. Um`lea’ States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Phillips v. United States, No. 2011-1941 (D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2011).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808,809 (D.C.
  • Carter v. Laws of the United States, No. 2011-1580 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2011).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United Stales, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Bush v. Gonzalez, No. 2011-0839 (D.D.C. May 5, 2011).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Smith v. United States of Am., No. 2011-0643 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2011).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • OLANIYI v. Dist. of Columbia, 763 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2011).published
    Stokes v. United States Postal Serv., 937 F.Supp. 11, 14 (D.D.C.1996) (citing Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.Cir.1984)).
  • Olaniyi v. United States, No. 2006-2165 (D.D.C. Feb. 4, 2011).published
    Stokes v. United States Postal Serv., 937 F. Supp. 11, 14 (D.D.C. 1996) (citing Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Herbert v. Holder, No. 2010-2090 (D.D.C. Dec. 9, 2010).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Colbert v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 2010-1437 (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2010).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Partovi v. United States, No. 2010-1408 (D.D.C. Aug. 20, 2010).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Colbert v. US Marshal's Off., No. 2010-1345 (D.D.C. Aug. 10, 2010).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808,809 (D.C.
  • Al-Zahrani v. Donald Rumsfeld, No. 2009-0028 (D.D.C. Feb. 16, 2010).published
    Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Al-Zahrani v. Rumsfeld, 684 F. Supp. 2d 103 (D.D.C. 2010).published
    Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.Cir.1984).
  • Rattler v. United States, No. 2010-0087 (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2010).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Martin v. United States Marshal Serv., No. 2009-0169 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2009).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Martin v. United States Marshals Serv., 674 F. Supp. 2d 122 (D.D.C. 2009).published
    See Simpkins v. District of Columbia, 108 F.3d 366, 370-71 (D.C.Cir.1997); GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 917-20 (D.C.Cir.1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.Cir.1984).
  • Jackson v. Gmac, Ins., No. 2009-0868 (D.D.C. Oct. 22, 2009).published
    See GAF Corp., 818 F.2d at 917-20 ; Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Peavey v. Gonzalez, No. 2005-0819 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2009).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Peavey v. Holder, 657 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.D.C. 2009).published
    See Jones v. U.S., 296 Fed.Appx. 82, 88 (D.C.Cir.2008); Simpkins v. District of Columbia Gov’t, 108 F.3d 366, 370-71 (D.C.Cir.1997); GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 917-20 (D.C.Cir.1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 8…
  • Edwards v. Inglehart, 648 F. Supp. 2d 164 (D.D.C. 2009).published
    See GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 917-20 (D.C.Cir.1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.Cir.1984); Stokes v. U.S. Postal Service, 937 F.Supp. 11, 14 (D.D.C.1996).
  • Montenegro v. United States Coast Guard, No. 2009-1455 (D.D.C. July 31, 2009).published
    Cir. 1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.
  • Thomas v. Nicholson, 561 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008).published
    Op. [Dkt. # 155] at 213 (“The exhaustion requirement is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite, GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 905 (D.C.Cir.1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.Cir.1984), which the Court cann…
  • Thomas v. Nicholson, 539 F. Supp. 2d 205 (D.D.C. 2008).published
    The exhaustion requirement is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite, GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 905 (D.C.Cir.1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.Cir.1984), which the Court cannot excuse.
  • Hall v. Admin. Off. of the United States Courts, 496 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D.D.C. 2007).published
    Thus, the filing of such a claim with the agency is a mandatory prerequisite to filing a lawsuit against the United States, and without it, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a tort claim against the United States. 1 Jackson v. Unit…
  • Healy Ex Rel. Healy v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 157 (D.D.C. 2006).published
    Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.Cir. 1984) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2675 ); see also Avocados Plus Inc. v. Veneman, 370 F.3d 1243, 1247 (D.C.Cir.2004) (distinguishing the concepts of jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional exhaus…
  • Off. of Foreign Assets Control v. Voices in the Wilderness, 329 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C. 2004).published
    See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 , 113 S.Ct. 1980 , 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993); Simpkins v. District of Columbia Gov’t, 108 F.3d 366, 371 (D.C.Cir.1997); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.Cir.1984); Arbitraje Casa d…
  • Arbitraje Casa De Cambio, S.A. De C v. v. United States Postal Serv., 297 F. Supp. 2d 165 (D.D.C. 2003).published
    Presentation of a claim “is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite to suit against the United States, and this failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction to hear these claims.” Jackson v.…
  • Konarski v. Brown, 293 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2003).published
    (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a claim brought under the Federal Tort Claim Act for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing suit)
  • Reynolds El v. Husk, 273 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2002).published
    See GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 917-20 (D.C.Cir.1987); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.Cir.1984).
  • Aldridge v. Hartford Hosp., 969 F. Supp. 816 (D. Conn. 1996).published
    Henderson v. United States, 785 F.2d 121, 123-125 (4th Cir.1986); Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809-810 (D.C.Cir.1984) (per curiam); Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1402 (9th Cir.1983); Rauccio v. Frank, 750 F.Supp. 566, 574 (D.…
  • Stokes v. U.S. Postal Serv., 937 F. Supp. 11 (D.D.C. 1996).published
    Jackson v. United States, 730 F.2d 808, 809 (D.C.Cir.1984).
At page 810 “different in nature from the wrongful death claim asserted administratively.”2 citing cases2 citing courts quote it
At page 808 “such an administrative claim is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite to an ftca suit against the united states.”0 citing cases2 citing courts quote it · passage not found verbatim in the opinion (82%)
    Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
    Linda Charlene JACKSON, Representative, Estate of George Jackson, Jr., Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES of America
    83-1308.
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
    Mar 23, 1984.
    Published opinion
    730 F.2d 808
    1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24258
    David J. Perrone, Olney, Md. with whom Thomas Fortune Fay, Olney, Md., was on the brief, for appellant., Wayne P. Williams, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Stanley S. Harris, U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C. (at the time the brief was filed), Royce C. Lamberth, R. Craig Lawrence, and Michael J. Ryan, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellees., Before EDWARDS and SCALIA, Circuit Judges, and GESELL,* United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.
    Per Curiam.
    Cited by 64 opinions  |  Published

    Opinion PER CURIAM.

    PER CURIAM:

    This is an appeal from an Order of the United States District Court dismissing a complaint brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing suit. [1] For the reasons given below, we affirm in part and remand for further consideration.

    George Jackson, Jr. (Jackson) was killed in March, 1979, while an inmate at the Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, federal penitentiary. He died intestate. On October 6, 1980, Jackson’s mother and father filed an administrative claim against the United States alleging wrongful death and seeking damages of $100,000. This claim was denied by the government in December of 1981. On March 23, 1983, suit was filed in United States District Court by Linda Jackson, widow of the decedent, “individually and as personal representative of Estate of George L. Jackson, Jr.,” asking for ten million dollars in damages under Pennsylvania’s wrongful death and survival action statutes, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 8301, 8302. The complaint was signed by Linda Jackson as the named plaintiff, and also by the decedent’s parents as “understood and agreed to.”

    After discovery was well under way the United States moved to dismiss on the ground that the suit was barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because Jackson’s widow had not filed an administrative claim. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the claim filed by Jackson’s parents satisfied the requisites of the Federal Tort Claims Act because the claim form listed Linda Jackson as Jackson’s spouse, therefore putting the government on “notice” of her claim, and because the survival claim she asserted was the same “right” asserted by the parents in their administrative action. On October 12, 1982, the District Court dismissed the suit, holding that the parents’ administrative claim for wrongful death “was filed on their own behalf” and “cannot be used by plaintiff to satisfy the requirement that she file an administrative claim.” Jackson, 558 F.Supp. at 16.

    The District Court was clearly correct in concluding that the survivorship action and Linda Jackson’s individual wrongful death action are barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act. She filed no administrative claim on behalf of herself or the estate. Such a claim is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite to a suit against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2675. Mere “notice” of plaintiff’s claims, even if such[*810] could be inferred from the claim form filed by Jackson’s parents, is not enough. See, e.g., Gordon H. Ball, Inc. v. United States, 461 F.Supp. 311, 314 (D.Nev.1978); Walker v. United States, 471 F.Supp. 38, 42 (M.D. Fla.1978); Green v. United States, 385 F.Supp. 641, 644 (S.D.Cal.1974); Collazo v. United States, 372 F.Supp. 61, 62 (D.P.R. 1973). Nor can there be any doubt that the survivorship claims raised in court are different in nature from the wrongful death claim asserted administratively. McClinton v. White, 285 Pa.Super. 271, 427 A.2d 218, 221 (1981).

    There nevertheless remains an issue which was not fully addressed by the District Court, namely, whether Linda Jackson, as personal representative of the estate, can pursue the parents’ own claim for wrongful death on their behalf. [2] There is no question that the parents have satisfied the administrative exhaustion requirements of the FTCA with respect to their own wrongful death claim. Moreover, the complaint filed below was brought “for damages for the wrongful death and survivor-ship (by the wife, the estate, and its heirs) of a prisoner ...” [emphasis added], and was signed by the parents as “agreed to.” It cannot be said, therefore, that the parents took no further action to pursue their wrongful death claim. 558 F.Supp. at 15.

    The parents’ claim has been properly presented in Court, however, only if the named plaintiff has authority to represent their interests with respect to their § 8301 wrongful death claim. This question, which involves an interpretation of Pennsylvania law, see 28 C.F.R. 14.5, was not addressed by the District Court and has not been adequately briefed and argued on appeal. Further facts may be required before the effect of Pennsylvania law in the present case can be determined. [3] This phase of the case must be remanded to the District Court. Although we express no view on the merits, if the District Court determines that the parents’ wrongful death action should go forward any recovery must be limited to the $100,000 claimed administratively. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(b). We intimate no view concerning whether Linda Jackson would be entitled under state law to share in the parents’ recovery or, indeed, whether the federal courts are the proper forum for addressing this issue.

    The judgment of the District Court is affirmed in part and remanded for further consideration in the light of the foregoing.

    1

    . Jackson v. United States, 558 F.Supp. 14 (D.D. C.1982).

    2

    . This issue was not discussed by the District Court in its Memorandum opinion. Plaintiff brought this question to the Court's attention in her motion for reconsideration, which was denied without explanation.

    3

    . The law of that state on this question is not clear. Compare Soares v. McClosky, 466 F.Supp. 703, 708 (E.D.Pa.1979) ("Under Pennsylvania law, an administratrix can bring ... a wrongful death action on behalf of specified beneficiaries ...”) with Heffner v. Allstate Insurance Co., 265 Pa.Super. 181, 401 A.2d 1160, 1164 (1979) ("In a wrongful death action ... [t]he persons entitled to recover such damages do not include the victim’s estate generally ...”).