In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18-2695 THOMAS A. CENSKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:16-cv-2761 — Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED DECEMBER 3, 2019 — DECIDED JANUARY 17, 2020 ____________________ Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Prisoners face unique challenges when submitting legal filings. Non-prisoners often have ac- cess to electronic filing methods and, if not, can take their fil- ings to the post office. But prisoners must use the prison’s mail system, where security concerns often cause the system to operate more slowly than standard mail. For legal filings, 2 No. 18-2695 timing can make all the difference, as it did for Thomas Censke. Censke placed his administrative complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act in the prison’s mailbox with nine days to spare, but the government stamped it as received after the statutory deadline had passed. The question is which date counts—when Censke put it in the mail or when it arrived. The district court held that Censke’s claim was not filed until received, so it was untimely. We reverse and hold that the prison-mailbox rule applies to a prisoner’s administrative complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act and so it is filed upon being placed in the prison’s mail. I Thomas Censke sought to bring a claim under the FTCA for injuries he says he suffered at the hands of prison guards in December 2013. He alleged that correctional officers and medical staff at the federal jail in Terre Haute, Indiana, phys- ically abused him and then inadequately cared for his injuries, which included a concussion, nerve damage, and a herniated diaphragm. Before bringing his claim to court, Censke had to comply with the FTCA’s administrative notice requirements. The statute required Censke to give notice in writing to the Bureau of Prisons within two years of the incident. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). Notice could occur by sending a Bureau-pro- vided form (shorthanded as SF-95) to the regional office in which the injury happened. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 14.2(a), 543.31. Bureau of Prisons regulations further provide that a com- plaint sent to the wrong office or agency will be transferred to the right one. See id. § 543.32(b). The Bureau considers claims filed when first received by any of its offices. See DEPARTMENT No. 18-2695 3 OF JUSTICE,FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Program Statement 1320.06: Federal Tort Claims Act (2003). Censke struggled to present his administrative complaint. He moved prisons six times in the two years following the al- leged incident and lost access to his legal materials while in transit. He also contends that prison staff ignored his requests for an SF-95 form. When he eventually got the form, he was being held at the federal facility in McCreary, Kentucky. Censke then asked McCreary staff for the address of the Bu- reau ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals