Jimmy Dale Lofton, in Pro Se v. Margaret M. Heckler, as Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 781 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Jimmy Dale Lofton, in Pro Se v. Margaret M. Heckler, as Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 781 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
50 citation events across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cardente v. Fleet Bank of Maine, Inc. (med, 1992-06-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cardente v. Fleet Bank of Maine, Inc.
D. Me. · 1992 · confidence medium
See Hilliard v. United States Postal Service, 814 F.2d 325, 327 (6th Cir.1987); King v. Dole, 782 F.2d 274, 275 (D.C.Cir.1986); Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986). 7 Here, because the time limitations in section 1821(d)(6) are jurisdictional prerequisites, 8 the Court may not apply Rule 6(a) to extend the Court’s jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ untimely filed Complaint.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thomas Pereira v. U.S. Postal Service Judith Wolfe Ernie Molina Tom Regan Frank Smith
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam). 1.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sanders v. Department of Army
E.D. Mo. · 1991 · confidence medium
See Scinto v. Kollman, 667 F.Supp. 1106, 1107 (D.Md. 1987) (citing uncertainty in the validity of a defense at the time answer was filed as grounds for allowing amendment); see also Johnson v. Burnley, 887 F.2d 471, 475-79 (4th Cir.1989), vacated, reh’g en banc granted, (Jan. 2, 1990) (concluding § 7703(b)(2) is in the nature of a statute of limitations); Hilliard v. United States Postal Serv., 814 F.2d 325, 327 (6th Cir. 1987) (concluding § 7703(b)(2) is jurisdictional); King v. Dole, 782 F.2d 274, 275-76 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 856 , 107 S.Ct. 194 , 93 L.Ed.2d 126 (1986) (same…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pereira v. U.S. Postal Service
9th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986). 1.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Margaret F. Johnson v. James Burnley, Secretary of the Department of Transportation (6×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
4th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Hilliard v. United States Postal Service, 814 F.2d 325, 327 (6th Cir.1987); Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam); 4 King v. Dole, 782 F.2d 274, 275-77 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam ), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 856 , 107 S.Ct. 194 , 93 L.Ed.2d 126 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams-Scaife v. Department of Defense Dependent Schools
9th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Lubniewski v. Lehman, 891 F.2d 216, 218-20 (9th Cir.1989); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1418-19 (9th Cir.1989); Hymen v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 799 F.2d 1421, 1422 (9th Cir.1986), ce rt. denied, 481 U.S. 1019 , 107 S.Ct. 1900 , 95 L.Ed.2d 506 (1987); Koucky v. Department of Navy, 820 F.2d 300, 302 (9th Cir.1987); Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 55 Fair empl.prac.cas. 119, 55 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,566 Georgia Williams-Scaife, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Department of Defense Dependent Schools Office of Dependent Schools Dept. Of Defense Lawrence Korg Robert Ferguson Chapman B. Cox
9th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Lubniewski v. Lehman, 891 F.2d 216, 218-20 (9th Cir.1989); Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1418-19 (9th Cir.1989); Hymen v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 799 F.2d 1421, 1422 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1019 , 107 S.Ct. 1900 , 95 L.Ed.2d 506 (1987); Koucky v. Department of Navy, 820 F.2d 300, 302 (9th Cir.1987); Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986) 5 By our action we imply no disagreement with the views expressed by the district court; its comments below were most judicious and thoughtful in every respect.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McKenzie v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission/Charlotte District Office
W.D.N.C. · 1990 · confidence medium
See generally Johnson v. Burnley, 887 F.2d 471, 474-79 (4th Cir.1989); but see Hilliard v. United States Postal Service, 814 F.2d 325, 327 (6th Cir.1987) (holding that 30-day time limit is a subject matter jurisdictional requirement); Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (same); King v. Dole, 782 F.2d 274, 275-77 (D.C.Cir.) (same); cert. denied, 479 U.S. 856 , 107 S.Ct. 194 , 93 L.Ed.2d 126 (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thomas Pereira v. U.S. Postal Service Judith Wolfe Ernie Molina Tom Regan Frank Smith
9th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986). 1.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dennis C. Barsten v. Department of the Interior (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
9th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Samuel Jackson v. John O. Marsh, Jr.
9th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lydia Lubniewski v. John F. Lehman Jr., Secretary of the Navy
9th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) 49 Fair empl.prac.cas. 251, 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,721 Arthur Hays v. Postmaster General of the United States United States Merit Systems Protection Board
9th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hays v. Postmaster General of the United States
9th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Edinboro v. Department of Health & Human Services
S.D.N.Y. · 1988 · confidence medium
King v. Dole, 782 F.2d 274, 275-76 (D.C. *366 Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 856 , 107 S.Ct. 194 , 93 L.Ed.2d 126 (1986); Hilliard v. U.S. Postal Service, 814 F.2d 325, 327 (6th Cir.1987); Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986); see also, Taylor v. Tisch, 686 F.Supp. 304, 308 (S.D.Fla.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Evelyn JORDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William P. CLARK, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Defendant-Appellee
9th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Taylor v. Tisch
S.D. Fla. · 1988 · confidence medium
See Hilliard v. United States Postal Service, 814 F.2d 325, 327 (6th Cir. 1987); King v. Dole, 782 F.2d 274 , 275-76 and n. 2 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 856 , 107 S.Ct. 194 , 93 L.Ed.2d 126 (1986); Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam); James v. United States Postal Service, 835 *308 F.2d 1265 (8th Cir.1988); cf. Lee, 774 F.2d at 1068 -69 n. 2 (reserving ruling on the issue).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James v. United States Postal Service
8th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hilliard v. United States Postal Serv., 814 F.2d 325, 327 (6th Cir.1987); King v. Dole, 782 F.2d 274 , 275-76 and n. 2 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 194 (1986); Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 45 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1117, 45 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,707 John W. James v. United States Postal Service and United States Postmaster General, Preston R. Tisch
8th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hilliard v. United States Postal Serv., 814 F.2d 325, 327 (6th Cir.1987); King v. Dole, 782 F.2d 274 , 275-76 and n. 2 (D.C.Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 194 (1986); Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Healy v. United States Postal Service
E.D.N.Y · 1987 · confidence medium
Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986); Hall v. Small Business Administration, 695 F.2d 175, 180 (5th Cir.1983); Newbold v. United States Postal Service, 614 F.2d 46, 47 (5th Cir.) (per curiam) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 878 , 101 S.Ct. 225 , 66 L.Ed.2d 101 (1980); Canino v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 707 F.2d 468 , 472 (11th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Timothy v. Hymen v. Merit Systems Protection Board
9th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986); Cooper v. United States Postal Service, 740 F.2d 714, 716 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1022 , 105 S.Ct. 2034 , 85 L.Ed.2d 316 (1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Winston B. Lewy v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company (2×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Since we may affirm the trial court’s decision on any ground supported by the record, 3 Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986); accord Smith v. Block, 784 F.2d 993 , 996 n. 4 (9th Cir.1986); Bloom v. General Truck Drivers, Office, Food & Warehouse Union, Local 952, 783 F.2d 1356 , 1363 n. 16 (9th Cir.1986), we need not address the merits of the trial court’s ruling excluding this evidence under Rule 403. 4 We also conclude that Lewy’s remaining challenges to the trial court’s judgment are without merit.
discussed Cited "see" Nunnally v. MacCausland
1st Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams-Scaife v. Department of Defense Dependent Schools, 925 F.2d 346 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that Irwin effectively overruled all prior Ninth Circuit cases which had denied equitable tolling under statutes and regulations relating to federal employee -7- discrimination suits, including one which had denied tolling under 5 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2), Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir. 1986)); Ware v. Frank, 1992 U.S. Dist.
discussed Cited "see" Odessa Nunnally v. Charles MacCausland
1st Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams-Scaife v. Department of Defense Dependent Schools, 925 F.2d 346 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that Irwin effectively overruled all prior Ninth Circuit cases which had denied equitable tolling under statutes and regulations relating to federal employee discrimination suits, including one which had denied tolling under 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(2), Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986)); Ware v. Frank, 1992 WL 19861 , 1992 U.S. Dist.
cited Cited "see" Shirley MAHONEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; Postmaster General; Oakland Postmaster, Defendants-Appellees
9th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited "see" Gordon Lynn Miles v. Department of the Army
9th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986) (“statutory time periods for filing Title YII actions are jurisdictional and are strictly enforced”). 2 Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), a plaintiff may amend his complaint once, as of right, at any time prior to the filing of a responsive pleading.
discussed Cited "see" Conner v. Burford
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986); Seattle Times Co. v. Seattle Mailers' Union No. 32, 664 F.2d 1366 , 1369 n. 2 (9th Cir.1982) 49 As it stands, the order is open to the interpretation that the leases themselves have been set aside.
cited Cited "see" Conner v. Burford
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986); Seattle Times Co. v. Seattle Mailers’ Union No. 32, 664 F.2d 1366 , 1369 n. 2 (9th Cir.1982). .
discussed Cited "see" Conner v. Burford
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986); Seattle Times Co. v. Seattle Mailers' Union No. 32, 664 F.2d 1366 , 1369 n. 2 (9th Cir.1982) 48 As it stands, the order is open to the interpretation that the leases themselves have been set aside.
discussed Cited "see" Conner v. Burford
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390, 1392 (9th Cir.1986); Seattle Times Co. v. Seattle Mailers’ Union No. 32, 664 F.2d 1366 , 1369 n. 2 (9th Cir.1982). .As it stands, the order is open to the interpretation that the leases themselves have been set aside.
cited Cited "see" Daryl Ford VALENZUELA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KRAFT, INC., Defendant-Appellant
9th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See 781 F.2d at 1392 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Irvin H. Hilliard v. United States Postal Service
6th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id. at 277 ; see also Lofton v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir.1986) (pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(2), appellant’s failure to file within 30 days after receipt of notice of judicially reviewable action deprived court of jurisdiction.) In the present case, appellant’s arguments that the notions of fundamental fairness require that the limitations period be extended is without merit.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jimmy Dale LOFTON, in Pro Se, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Margaret M. HECKLER, as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Et Al., Defendant-Appellee
84-2190.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 6, 1986.
781 F.2d 1390
Jimmy Dale Lofton, El Cerrito, Cal., pro se., Joseph P. Russoniello, U.S. Atty., Patrick Ramirez S. Bupara, Chief, Civil Div., Stephen L. Schirle, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Schroeder, Alarcon, Boochever.
Cited by 40 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Dale Lofton appeals from the dismissal of his Title VII action for failure to file a claim within thirty days of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) as required by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2) (1982). We affirm.

I.

On June 16, 1982, Lofton received notice of an MSPB decision denying his claim that the Social Security Administration had, because of his race, improperly removed him from his attorney-advisor position. He filed a timely petition for review in this court on July 16, 1982. We concluded that we lacked jurisdiction and transferred the action to the district court. Lofton v. Department of Health & Human Services, No. 82-5238, (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 1982) (unpublished order). Having named an incorrect party, Lofton amended his complaint on March 22, 1983, to name the proper defendant. On July 27, 1983, the district court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to name the proper defendant and failure to effect proper service. In dismissing the action, the district court did not consider Lofton’s amended complaint naming the proper defendant because Lof-[*1392] ton “failed to serve this amended complaint in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(5).” Lofton moved to vacate the dismissal order and to recuse the district court judge but the district court judge denied the motions. Subsequently, on December 16, 1983, Lof-ton filed a document entitled “amended complaint.” That document is the subject of this appeal. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

II.

The court of appeals reviews de novo a district court’s decision on subject matter jurisdiction. Clayton v. Republic Airlines, Inc., 716 F.2d 729, 730 (9th Cir.1983). It may affirm on any ground supported by the record even though the grounds relied on by the district court are different from the ones outlined by the appellate court. See, Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1364 (9th Cir.1983).

III.

5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2) sets forth the procedure for seeking review of MSPB decisions. It requires that “any such case ... be filed within 30 days after the date the individual filing the case received notice of the judicially reviewable action.” The statutory time periods for filing Title VII actions are jurisdictional and are strictly enforced. See, e.g., Cooper v. United States Postal Service, 740 F.2d 714, 716 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 2034, 85 L.Ed.2d 316 (1985) (construing 30-day requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) as jurisdictional); Cleveland v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 509 F.2d 1027, 1029-30 (9th Cir.1975) (construing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e) as jurisdictional). This court has construed as jurisdictional the thirty-day filing requirement of 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) which concerns direct appellate review of MSPB decisions not involving claims of discrimination. Boehm v. Foster, 670 F.2d 111, 113 (9th Cir.1982). This same construction applies to the thirty-day period established by section 7703(b)(2) for review by the district court of Title VII claims initially brought before the MSPB. King v. Dole, 595 F.Supp. 1140, 1144 (D.D.C.1984). Thus, under section 7703(b)(2), failure to file within thirty days after receipt of notice of a judicially reviewable action deprives the court of jurisdiction.

In view of Lofton’s failure originally to file a complaint against the proper defendant within the thirty-day statutory period, his claim must be barred unless his December 16, 1983 “amended complaint” substituting the proper party relates back to the date his original complaint was filed.

Rule 15(c), which governs the relation back of amendments to pleadings, states:

An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if ..., within the period provided by law for commencing the action against him, the party to be brought in by amendment (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits, and (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c). This circuit adheres to a literal interpretation of the Rule 15(c) notice requirement. For example, in Cooper, 740 F.2d at 717, we found that Cooper’s failure to notify the substitute defendant of her action until after the statutory period had run precluded the favorable application of Rule 15(e). Similarly, in Williams v. United States, 711 F.2d 893, 898 (9th Cir.1983), we upheld the district court’s denial of the plaintiff’s Rule 15(c) motion to name the United States as a defendant because the United States had not received notice of the action until one day after the statute of limitations had run. Thus Lofton’s attempt to substitute the Secretary of Health and Human Services is ineffective because the Secretary did not receive notice of Lofton’s action until several months after the thirty-day statutory period had run. Lofton’s December 16, 1983 complaint thus cannot relate back and the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.

[*1393] Lofton could have preserved his Title VII action by filing the amended complaint designating the proper party if he had given notice to the United States before July 17, 1982. [1] He failed to do so. Therefore, Lof-ton’s December 16, 1983 amended complaint cannot relate back to date of filing his original complaint. The district court was without jurisdiction to consider the December 16, 1983 complaint and correctly dismissed the action. For that reason we need not consider the merits of the other issues raised in this appeal.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

1

. The rule’s drafters specifically recognized that the notice provision of 15(c) can work harsh results, most acutely in actions by private parties against officers or agencies of the United States. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 advisory committee notes on 1966 Amendment. To remedy this problem, Rule 15(c) was amended in 1966 to allow the parties to give proper notice of an action by serving process on either the "United States Attorney, ... or the Attorney General of the United States, or an agency or officer who would have been a proper defendant if named.” See also, Cooper, 740 F.2d at 717.