green
Positive treatment
Doctrinal family: Mildred Jerves v. United States ↗
Quoted verbatim 20×
122.9 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2020–2023 ·
…the united states is the only proper party defendant in an ftca action
at p. 1078
✓
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2010–2023 · 3 courts↑ Rising ·
…he united states is the only proper party defendant in an ftca action
at p. 1078
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#1
39 U.S.C. § 1001-11
#1
5 U.S.C. § 7501-43
#16
39 U.S.C. § 1005
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Dahlstrom v. Biden
espite the statutory authority of any 3 agency to sue or be sued in its own name . . . claim against the united states postal service 4 in its own name is not a claim against the united states.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ponomarenko v. Galens
the ftca is the exclusive remedy for tort actions against a federal agency. . .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Chin v. Small Business Administration of the United States
because the united states is 17 the only proper party defendant in an ftca action, the district court correctly dismissed 18 her complaint as improperly filed against the postal service and .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
(PS) Hedrington v. Veteran's Admin. of the USA
the united states is the only proper party defendant in an ftca action
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
A.G. v. United States of America
a claim against the in its own name is not 12 a claim against the united states.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Weekly v. United States of America
he united states is the only proper party defendant in an ftca action
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
(PS) Douglas v. Sacramento Job Corps Center
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
the ftca is the exclusive remedy for tort actions against 3 a federal agency.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
(PS) McElroy v. United States
the united states is the only proper party defendant in an ftca action
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
(PC) Magallanes Castro v. United States
the united states is the only proper party defendant in an ftca action
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
(PS) Yerike v. Majano
the united states is the only proper party defendant in an ftca action
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
(PS) Johnson v. FBI
he 24 united states is the only proper party defendant in an ftca action
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
(PS) Noeldner v. United States Government
the united states is the only proper party defendant in an ftca action
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
(PS) Zhai v. Markstein Beverage Company
the united states 15 is the only proper party defendant in an ftca action
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Zandi v. United States
because the united states is the only proper party defendant in an ftca action, the district court correctly dismissed her complaint as improperly filed against the postal service and .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sandowski v. Nielsen
he united states is the only proper party defendant in an ftca action
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Martinez v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
he united states is the only proper party defendant in an ftca action
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Soto v. Runyon
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
a claim against the united states postal service in its own name is not a claim against the united states.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
California Fair Plan Association v. United States Department of Agriculture
because the united states is the only proper party defendant in 19 an ftca action, the district court correctly dismissed her complaint as improperly 20 filed against the postal service and .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Williams v. City of Federal Way
he united 16 states is the only proper party defendant in an ftca action.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lawrence v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
he united states is the only proper party defendant in an ftca action.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Bartlett Regional Hospital; Alaska Native Medical Center; Mat-Su Regional Hospital; Ian Wheels; Boney Courthouse; Nesbitt Courthouse; U.S. Air Force; and Alaska State Troopers
Claims against these buildings are, once again, dismissed with prejudice.12 With respect to Alaska Native Medical Center (“ANMC”), when alleged events occur at a federally funded healthcare facility, the proper defendant in such a case is the United States of America, and such a case must be brought under the Federal Torts Claims Act.13 To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to bring a medical malpractice claim under the FTCA, she first must seek an administrative resolution of her claim by filing a claim with the appropriate agency.14 Because Plaintiff has not provided any indication that she…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Bartlett Regional Hospital; Alaska Native Medical Center; Mat-Su Regional Hospital; Ian Wheels; Boney Courthouse; Nesbitt Courthouse; U.S. Air Force; and Alaska State Troopers
Claims against these buildings are, once again, dismissed with prejudice.12 With respect to Alaska Native Medical Center (“ANMC”), when alleged events occur at a federally funded healthcare facility, the proper defendant in such a case is the United States of America, and such a case must be brought under the Federal Torts Claims Act.13 To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to bring a medical malpractice claim under the FTCA, she first must seek an administrative resolution of her claim by filing a claim with the appropriate agency.14 Because Plaintiff has not provided any indication that she…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Bartlett Regional Hospital; Alaska Native Medical Center; Mat-Su Regional Hospital; Ian Wheels; Boney Courthouse; Nesbitt Courthouse; U.S. Air Force; and Alaska State Troopers
Claims against these buildings are, once again, dismissed with prejudice.12 With respect to Alaska Native Medical Center (“ANMC”), when alleged events occur at a federally funded healthcare facility, the proper defendant in such a case is the United States of America, and such a case must be brought under the Federal Torts Claims Act.13 To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to bring a medical malpractice claim under the FTCA, she first must seek an administrative resolution of her claim by filing a claim with the appropriate agency.14 Because Plaintiff has not provided any indication that she…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Bartlett Regional Hospital; Alaska Native Medical Center; Mat-Su Regional Hospital; Ian Wheels; Boney Courthouse; Nesbitt Courthouse; U.S. Air Force; and Alaska State Troopers
Claims against these buildings are, once again, dismissed with prejudice.12 With respect to Alaska Native Medical Center (“ANMC”), when alleged events occur at a federally funded healthcare facility, the proper defendant in such a case is the United States of America, and such a case must be brought under the Federal Torts Claims Act.13 To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to bring a medical malpractice claim under the FTCA, she first must seek an administrative resolution of her claim by filing a claim with the appropriate agency.14 Because Plaintiff has not provided any indication that she…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon w…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon w…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon w…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewis-Junge v. Office of Children Services
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
See 3:25- cv-00243-RRB, Docket 1 at 3. 52 See Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[T]he United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action.”); F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the United States.”). 53 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). relief only for “cruel and unusual punishment,”54 which is not a viable claim against a health care provider, and therefore is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ivy KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Marvin Runyon, Postmaster General, Defendants-Appellees
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Marvin Runyon, Postmaster General, Defendants-Appellees
97-35375.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 28, 1998.
Marybeth Wosko, Portland, Oregon, for the plaintiff-appellant., Herbert C. Sunby, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Portland, Oregon, for the defendants-appellees.
Skopil, Hawkins, Thomas.
Cited by 159 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
This appeal presents the question of whether a non-preference eligible postal worker may sue for employment-related torts under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). We hold that her claims are precluded by the Postal Reorganization Act (“PRA”) and the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”).
Ivy Kennedy, an occupational health nurse, alleges that her supervisor at the United States Postal Service destroyed and altered medical records. She complained about this[*1078] activity and was allegedly fired as a result. Upon-exhaustion of her administrative remedies, as required under the FTCA, she filed an FTCA action against Marvin Runyon, in his official capacity as Postmaster General, and the United States Postal Service (“Postal Service”).
Because the United States is the only proper party defendant in an FTCA action, the district court correctly dismissed her complaint as improperly filed against the Postal Service and Runyon. The FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tort actions against a federal agency, and this is so despite the statutory authority of any agency to sue or be sued in its own name. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a) (1998). A claim against the United States Postal Service in its own name is not a claim against the United States. See Continental Cablevision v. United States Postal Serv., 945 F.2d 1434, 1440 (8th Cir.1991). Because the plaintiff brought an FTCA action against a person and entity not subject to the FTCA, the district court properly dismissed the named defendants.
The district court also correctly concluded that an amendment to substitute the United States as the defendant would be futile. Employment relations within the Postal Service are generally governed by the provisions of the PRA, 39 U.S.C. §§ 1001-11 (1998). One section of the PRA provides, however, that the provisions of Chapter 75 of the CSRA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7501-43 (1998), relating to adverse employment actions apply to Postal Service employees. See 39 U.S.C. § 1005(a)(1).
Federal employees alleging employment-related tort claims subject to the CSRA may not bring an action under the FTCA. See Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 841-42 (9th Cir.1991); Rivera v. United States, 924 F.2d 948, 951 (9th Cir.1991). This is true “even where a particular litigant does not have a remedy available under the statutory scheme.” Pereira v. United States Postal Service, 964 F.2d 873, 876 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Pipkin v. United States Postal Service, 951 F.2d 272, 275 (10th Cir.1991)). Because the relevant provisions of the CSRA and the PRA constitute a comprehensive scheme governing employment relations, employment-related tort actions under the FTCA are precluded. See American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Serv., 940 F.2d 704, 708-09 (D.C.Cir.1991). Thus, any amendment to the complaint would be futile. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.