Michael Morales v. United States
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 8 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL T. MORALES, No. 19-15870
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-03051-TLN-AC
v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 6, 2020**
Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Michael T. Morales appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action under the Federal Tort
Claims Act (“FTCA”) alleging he became disabled after receiving negligent
medical care from Northern Valley Indian Health (“NVIH”)—a tribal clinic for
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). which the federal government has contractually assumed tort liability under the
FTCA for personal injury resulting from NVIH employees’ medical care. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brady v. United States,
211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Morales’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Morales failed to file an administrative tort claim with
the United States prior to initiating his civil action. See id. at 502–04 (explaining
that the FTCA’s administrative claim requirement is jurisdictional and “must be
strictly adhered to”; affirming district court’s dismissal of FTCA claim).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-15870
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Michael Morales v. United States (Michael Morales v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.