Williams v. Lacey
This text of Williams v. Lacey (Williams v. Lacey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DESTINEE WILLIAMS CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
JOSHUA G. LACEY, ET AL. NO. 22-00927-BAJ-RLB
RULING AND ORDER In this personal injury action, Plaintiff seeks recovery for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of a November 2021 automobile crash that occurred at the intersection of Louisiana Highways 948 and 73. (Doc. 1-3). At the time of the collision, nominal Defendant Joshua G. Lacey was acting in the course and scope of his employment with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (Doc. 1-1). The United States has since been substituted for Mr. Lacey as the proper party Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2), (Doc. 11), and now moves to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to pursue an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) prior to filing suit. (Doc. 5). In support, the United States submits a Declaration from FEMA’s Associate Chief Counsel confirming that “[a]n administrative tort claim has not been received to this office by or on behalf of the Plaintiff, Destinee Williams.” (Doc. 5-2 at ¶ 9). Plaintiff does not oppose the United States’ Motion. The law is clear that, under the FTCA, an action against the United States shall not be instituted unless the claimant has first filed an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Any such administrative claim must be pursued within two years of the time of the claimant’s injury, or it is barred. Johnson v. United States, 460 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)). Being satisfied that Plaintiff failed to pursue an administrative claim prior to initiating this action, but that time remains for Plaintiff to pursue any such claim, and in the
absence of any objection from Plaintiff, IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ unopposed Motion To Dismiss (Doc. 5) be and is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above captioned action be and is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to allow Plaintiff to pursue an administrative claim and exhaust her administrative remedies. Judgment shall be issued separately.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 6th day of April, 2023
_____________________________________ JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Williams v. Lacey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-lacey-lamd-2023.