McNeil v. United States
508 U.S. 106 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) may not be maintained when the claimant fails to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit, even if the remedies are exhausted before substantial progress is made in the litigation.
Facts:
- McNeil was a prisoner under the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections.
- McNeil alleged that the U.S. Public Health Service caused him serious injuries while conducting human research and experimentation on prisoners.
- On March 6, 1989, McNeil, representing himself, filed a complaint in federal court against the United States under the FTCA.
- Four months later, on July 7, 1989, McNeil submitted an administrative claim for damages to the Department of Health and Human Services.
- The Department of Health and Human Services denied McNeil's administrative claim on July 21, 1989.
Procedural Posture:
- McNeil filed a complaint against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The United States filed a motion to dismiss.
- The District Court granted the government's motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the action was premature, having been filed before the satisfaction of the administrative exhaustion requirement.
- McNeil, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuit courts on this issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Federal Tort Claims Act permit an action to proceed if the claimant filed the lawsuit before exhausting administrative remedies, but completes the exhaustion process before any substantial progress is made in the litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. The Federal Tort Claims Act strictly requires a claimant to exhaust all administrative remedies before instituting an action in federal court. The statute's command that an action shall not be instituted unless the claimant has first presented the claim to the appropriate agency is unambiguous and must be strictly adhered to. The court rejected the argument that a prematurely filed suit could 'spring into force' upon subsequent exhaustion of remedies, holding that the word 'instituted' in the FTCA is synonymous with 'begin' or 'commence.' The court reasoned that the most natural reading of the statute indicates Congress intended complete exhaustion of executive remedies before the judicial process is invoked, in order to promote orderly administration and give agencies a fair opportunity to investigate and settle claims. While pleadings from pro se prisoners are liberally construed, the court has never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be excused for those who proceed without counsel, as strict adherence to such rules ensures the evenhanded administration of the law.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the FTCA's exhaustion requirement as a rigid, non-waivable jurisdictional prerequisite to filing suit. By rejecting a more flexible approach that would allow premature filings to be 'cured' by subsequent exhaustion, the Court created a bright-line rule that promotes judicial efficiency and the statutory goal of administrative settlement. This ruling clarifies a circuit split, providing a uniform national standard, but also creates a significant potential pitfall for uncounseled litigants who may not understand the strict procedural sequence required. Future courts must now dismiss any FTCA case filed before administrative remedies are fully exhausted, regardless of the status of the litigation.
Unlock the full brief for McNeil v. United States