Morales-Alfaro v. CoreCivic, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Rubia Morales-Alfaro v. USA (2025-06-03) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, which alleged FTCA claims based on an administrative claim filed and allegedly denied within 13 days. The court ordered the plaintiff to submit evidence of the written final denial of her administrative claim to confirm subject matter jurisdiction, warning that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the FTCA claims.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring plaintiff to provide evidence of exhaustion of administrative remedies for FTCA claims“Morales-Alfaro is therefore ORDERED to file a copy of the written final denial of her claim by the agency.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite for FTCA claims. Because the plaintiff's allegations (a 13-day turnaround) raised a doubt about whether the agency had actually issued a final written denial, the court was required to confirm its jurisdiction. Ordering the plaintiff to produce the specific document (the written denial) is a standard and appropriate procedural mechanism to resolve this jurisdictional doubt before dismissing the claims. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the legal standard that FTCA exhaustion is jurisdictional and that the court must verify it. The court appropriately cites binding Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority to support its duty to investigate jurisdictional doubts. The procedural order to submit the specific document (the written denial) is a logical and necessary step to resolve the factual ambiguity in the complaint regarding whether a final denial actually occurred.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBIA MABEL MORALES- Case No.: 20cv82-LAB (BGS) ALFARO 12 ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF Plaintiff, 13 TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF v. EXHAUSTION 14 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 15 OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et 16 al. 17 Defendants. 18 19 After the Court dismissed tort claims against U.S. Defendants for failure to 20 exhaust administrative remedies, Plaintiff Rubia Mabel Morales-Alfaro filed a 21 second amended complaint (“SAC”) along with a separate response. The SAC 22 identifies certain claims as arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Morales- 23 Alfaro says she submitted her administrative claim on January 10, 2020, and now 24 says that claim was denied on January 23. Exhaustion of FTCA claims is 25 jurisdictional, Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1992), and the 26 Court is required to confirm its own jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary, whenever 27 any doubt arises. See Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 28 274, 278 (1977). The Court is required to dismiss for lack of subject matter 1 jurisdiction any FTCA claim that is not administratively exhausted. Goodman v. 2 United States, 298 F.3d 1048, 1054–55 (9th Cir. 2002). 3 An administrative claim is exhausted when the relevant agency finally denies 4 it in writing, or if the agency fails to make a final disposition of the claim within six 5 months of its filing. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Here, only thirteen days passed from the 6 date the claim was filed until the date Morales-Alfaro says it was denied. 7 In carrying out its obligation to confirm its own jurisdiction, the Court may 8 consider extrinsic evidence. See King v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2010 WL 11688280, 9 at *1 (C.D. Cal., July 21, 2010) (ordering parties to submit evidence of their 10 citizenship so that it could confirm diversity jurisdiction). Morales-Alfaro is therefore 11 ORDERED to file a copy of the written final denial of her claim by the agency. She 12 may file it as a notice and attach the denial as an exhibit. If she believes the 13 unredacted denial should not be filed in the docket, she may file an ex parte motion 14 to file it under seal, submitting a redacted copy for filing in the docket and an 15 unredacted copy for the Court’s review and records. Whichever option she 16 chooses must be completed by Friday, February 21, 2020. If she needs more 17 time to comply, she must file an ex parte application, showing good cause for the 18 requested extension. Failure to comply within the time permitted may result in 19 dismissal of all FTCA claims. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: February 14, 2020 23 24 Honorable Larry Alan Burns Chief United States District Judge 25 26 27 28