28 U.S.C. § 2679

Exclusiveness of remedy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The authority of any federal agency to sue and be sued in its own name shall not be construed to authorize suits against such federal agency on claims which are cognizable under section 1346(b) of this title, and the remedies provided by this title in such cases shall be exclusive.(b)(1) The remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b) and 2672 of this title for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death arising or resulting from the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment is exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding for money damages by reason of the same subject matter against the employee whose act or omission gave rise to the claim or against the estate of such employee. Any other civil action or proceeding for money damages arising out of or relating to the same subject matter against the employee or the employee’s estate is precluded without regard to when the act or omission occurred.(2) Paragraph (1) does not extend or apply to a civil action against an employee of the Government—(A) which is brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States, or(B) which is brought for a violation of a statute of the United States under which such action against an individual is otherwise authorized.(c) The Attorney General shall defend any civil action or proceeding brought in any court against any employee of the Government or his estate for any such damage or injury. The employee against whom such civil action or proceeding is brought shall deliver within such time after date of service or knowledge of service as determined by the Attorney General, all process served upon him or an attested true copy thereof to his immediate superior or to whomever was designated by the head of his department to receive such papers and such person shall promptly furnish copies of the pleadings and process therein to the United States attorney for the district embracing the place wherein the proceeding is brought, to the Attorney General, and to the head of his employing Federal agency.(d)(1) Upon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose, any civil action or proceeding commenced upon such claim in a United States district court shall be deemed an action against the United States under the provisions of this title and all references thereto, and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant.(2) Upon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose, any civil action or proceeding commenced upon such claim in a State court shall be removed without bond at any time before trial by the Attorney General to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place in which the action or proceeding is pending. Such action or proceeding shall be deemed to be an action or proceeding brought against the United States under the provisions of this title and all references thereto, and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant. This certification of the Attorney General shall conclusively establish scope of office or employment for purposes of removal.(3) In the event that the Attorney General has refused to certify scope of office or employment under this section, the employee may at any time before trial petition the court to find and certify that the employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment. Upon such certification by the court, such action or proceeding shall be deemed to be an action or proceeding brought against the United States under the provisions of this title and all references thereto, and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant. A copy of the petition shall be served upon the United States in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4(d)(4) 11 So in original. Probably should be a reference to Rule 4(i). of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the event the petition is filed in a civil action or proceeding pending in a State court, the action or proceeding may be removed without bond by the Attorney General to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place in which it is pending. If, in considering the petition, the district court determines that the employee was not acting within the scope of his office or employment, the action or proceeding shall be remanded to the State court.(4) Upon certification, any action or proceeding subject to paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall proceed in the same manner as any action against the United States filed pursuant to section 1346(b) of this title and shall be subject to the limitations and exceptions applicable to those actions.(5) Whenever an action or proceeding in which the United States is substituted as the party defendant under this subsection is dismissed for failure first to present a claim pursuant to section 2675(a) of this title, such a claim shall be deemed to be timely presented under section 2401(b) of this title if—(A) the claim would have been timely had it been filed on the date the underlying civil action was commenced, and(B) the claim is presented to the appropriate Federal agency within 60 days after dismissal of the civil action.(e) The Attorney General may compromise or settle any claim asserted in such civil action or proceeding in the manner provided in section 2677, and with the same effect.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 984; Pub. L. 87–258, § 1, Sept. 21, 1961, 75 Stat. 539; Pub. L. 89–506, § 5(a), July 18, 1966, 80 Stat. 307; Pub. L. 100–694, §§ 5, 6, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4564.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 945 (Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, § 423, 60 Stat. 846).

Changes were made in phraseology.

Senate Revision Amendment

The catchline and text of this section were changed and the section was renumbered “2678” by Senate amendment. See 80th Congress Senate Report No. 1559.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (d)(3), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

Amendments

1988—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–694, § 5, amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows: “The remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b) and 2672 of this title for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death, resulting from the operation by any employee of the Government of any motor vehicle while acting within the scope of his office or employment, shall hereafter be exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding by reason of the same subject matter against the employee or his estate whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.”

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 100–694, § 6, amended subsec. (d) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (d) read as follows: “Upon a certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident out of which the suit arose, any such civil action or proceeding commenced in a State court shall be removed without bond at any time before trial by the Attorney General to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending and the proceedings deemed a tort action brought against the United States under the provisions of this title and all references thereto. Should a United States district court determine on a hearing on a motion to remand held before a trial on the merits that the case so removed is one in which a remedy by suit within the meaning of subsection (b) of this section is not available against the United States, the case shall be remanded to the State court.”

1966—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 89–506 inserted reference to section 2672 of this title and substituted “remedy” for “remedy by suit”.

1961—Pub. L. 87–258 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) to (e).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1988 Amendment

Pub. L. 100–694, § 8, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4565, provided that:“(a)General Rule.—This Act and the amendments made by this Act [enacting section 831c–2 of Title 16, Conservation, amending this section and sections 2671 and 2674 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and section 2671 of this title] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 18, 1988].“(b)Applicability to Proceedings.—The amendments made by this Act [amending this section and sections 2671 and 2674 of this title] shall apply to all claims, civil actions, and proceedings pending on, or filed on or after, the date of the enactment of this Act.“(c)Pending State Proceedings.—With respect to any civil action or proceeding pending in a State court to which the amendments made by this Act apply, and as to which the period for removal under section 2679(d) of title 28, United States Code (as amended by section 6 of this Act), has expired, the Attorney General shall have 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act during which to seek removal under such section 2679(d).“(d)Claims Accruing Before Enactment.—With respect to any civil action or proceeding to which the amendments made by this Act apply in which the claim accrued before the date of the enactment of this Act, the period during which the claim shall be deemed to be timely presented under section 2679(d)(5) of title 28, United States Code (as amended by section 6 of this Act) shall be that period within which the claim could have been timely filed under applicable State law, but in no event shall such period exceed two years from the date of the enactment of this Act.”

Effective Date of 1966 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 89–506 applicable to claims accruing six months or more after July 18, 1966, see section 10 of Pub. L. 89–506, set out as a note under section 2672 of this title.

Effective Date of 1961 Amendment

Pub. L. 87–258, § 2, Sept. 21, 1961, 75 Stat. 539, provided that: “The amendments made by this Act [amending this section] shall be deemed to be in effect six months after the enactment hereof [Sept. 21, 1961] but any rights or liabilities then existing shall not be affected.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3,009 cases (931 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: Gutierrez De Martinez v. Lamagno

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gutierrez De Martinez v. Lamagno (1995) scotus · cites it 26× “" 28 U. S. C. § 2679 (d)(1). Upon certification, the employee is dismissed from the action and the United States is substituted as defendant.”

Arkan Ali v. Donald Rumsfeld (2011) cadc · cites it 24× “…thereto, and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (d)(1). The Westfall Act makes the FTCA remedy “exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding for money damages.” Id. § 2679(b)(1).”

Osborn v. Haley (2007) scotus · cites it 14× “See 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (b)(1). When a federal employee is sued for wrongful or negligent conduct, the Act empowers the Attorney General to certify that the employee "was acting within the *888 scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim…”

United States v. Smith (1991) scotus · cites it 24× “" 28 U. S. C. § 2679 (b)(1). Subject to certain exceptions, the FTCA permits a person injured by a Government employee acting within the scope of his or her employment to seek tort damages against the Government.”

Jeanina Celestine v. Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Center, United States of America, No. 04-0839-Cv (2005) ca2 · cites it 8× “The United States Attorney, having been notified of Celestine’s suit, certified on June 12, 2003, that under 28 U.S.C. § 2679 , Mount Vernon was acting within the scope of its defined employment as an employee of the United States at the time of the alleged malpractice and that,…”

Robert Garcia v. United States (1996) ca5 · cites it 31× “28 U.S.C. § 2679 (d)(2) (emphasis added).”

Rasul v. Myers (2008) cadc · cites it 14× “The district court agreed that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2679 et seq., provided the exclusive remedy for the defendants' allegedly tortious conduct and thus granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the ATS and Geneva Conventions claims.”

Santos Ex Rel. Beato v. United States (2009) ca3 · cites it 8× “28 U.S.C. § 2679 (d)(2). The Government then substituted the United States as the sole party defendant.”

Nicholas Nasuti v. James Scannell, Nicholas Nasuti v. James Scannell, United States of America, in Re United States of A (1990) ca1 · cites it 16× “” 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (b)(1). According to the House Report on the Westfall Act, “the availability of suit under the FTCA precludes any other civil action or proceeding of any kind from being brought against an individual Federal employee or his estate if such action or proceeding…”

Hernandez v. Mesa (2020) scotus · cites it 3× “…index="147" url="https://cite.case.law/citations/?q=28%20U.S.C.%20%C2%A7%202679"> 28 U.S.C. § 2679 . That Act makes the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) "the exclusive remedy for most claims against Government employees arising out of their official conduct." Hui v.…”

Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017) scotus · cites it 2× “%20%C2%A7%202679"> 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (b)(2)(A) (providing that certain provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act do not apply to any claim against a federal employee "which is brought for a violation of the Constitution").”

Sobitan v. Glud (2009) ca7 · cites it 13× “The Government filed a motion for substitution and dismissal under the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act (“West-fall Act”), 1 28 U.S.C. § 2679 . The district court granted the motion and dismissed the action.”

Show all 3,009 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a) — 5 cases

Davric Maine Corp. v. United States Postal Service (2001) ca1

Keese v. United States (1985) txsd

Olivo v. United States of America (2019) nysd

Alexander Harrison West v. Internal Revenue Service (2026) utd

— 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b) — 8 cases

Thomason v. Sanchez (1975) njd

Baker v. United States (1972) mdd

John E. Garrett v. John Wesley Jeffcoat and the United States of America (1973) ca4

Smith v. Rivest (1975) wied

Driscoll v. Harmon (1977) arizctapp

— 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1) — 5 cases

Borawski v. Henderson (2003) njd

Akers v. Gilbert (2020) ilsd

Riggs v. Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas (2024) casd

Poletto v. United States (2023) cod

Zavadovsky v. Republic of Austria (2026) dcd

— 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(2) — 1 case

Assaad-Faltas v. Griffin (1989) ared

— 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(2)(A) — 1 case

Coverage Issues Under the Indian Self-Determination Act (1998) olc

— 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d) — 8 cases

Webb v. United States (1998) vawd

Murphy v. West (1996) mdd

Panico v. WHITING MILK COMPANY (1971) mad

PW v. United States of America (2019) innd

PW v. United States of America (2020) innd

— 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1) — 9 cases

Taylor v. Clark (2011) dcd

McHugh v. University of Vermont (1991) vtd

Matlack, Inc. v. Treadway (1990) wvsd

Assaad-Faltas v. Griffin (1989) ared

Poletto v. United States (2023) cod

— 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2) — 6 cases

Derek A. Ross v. Vincent R. Bryan (2002) ca4

Winston v. Monahan (2026) dcd

(HC) Lewis v. United States (2021) caed

(PS) Douglas v. Sacramento Job Corps Center (2023) caed

Satterwhite v. United States (2020) cand

— 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(3) — 2 cases

Searcy v. Vilsack (2024) dcd

Trey Cholewa v. United States (2026) ca6

— 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(5) — 1 case

Cardinal Richardson v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, et al. (2025) flmd

— 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(l) — 1 case

Martin v. Gutierrez (2009) dcd

— 28 U.S.C. § 2679(e) — 1 case

United Services Auto v. United States (1997) ca4

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.