HASTINGS v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Wendy Hastings appeals the district court’s dismissal of her negligence claim against the United States with prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The district court correctly concluded that Hastings’s claim was time-barred and that her operative Second Amended Complaint did not relate back to filing of her original complaint. Hastings filed her original complaint within the Federal Tort Claims Act’s six-month statute of limitations, but amended her complaint to name the United States as a defendant only after the limitations period expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). Unless Hastings’s Second Amended Complaint relates back to the filing of her original complaint, her claim against the United States is time-barred.

To benefit from the relation back doctrine, Hastings must demonstrate compliance with the government notice provision, which requires that “process was delivered or mailed to the United States attorney or the United States attorney’s designee, to the Attorney General of the United States, or to the officer or agency” within the limitations period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2).¹ We interpret Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) “literally.” Miles v. Dep’t of Army, 881 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1989). The plain language of the government notice provision required Hastings to deliver or mail her original summons and complaint to one of the enumerated U.S. entities before the six-month limitations period expired. However, it is undisputed that the U.S. Attorney received only court-generated electronic notices that Hastings filed her original summons and complaint within the limitations period. The electronic notices did not contain or attach Hastings’s original summons or complaint. Rather, the U.S. Attorney could access the original summons or complaint only by clicking on a link in the notice and visiting the court website to view the document. Because the electronic notices to the U.S. Attorney did not deliver, mail, or even attach Hastings’s original summons and complaint, the district court correctly concluded that the relation back doctrine does not apply.

AFFIRM.

FOOTNOTES

1.   There is no dispute that Hastings satisfied the relation back doctrine’s other requirements, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(A), (B), and she does not claim that she satisfied the general notice provision, id. 15(c)(1)(C).