William Oliver v. United States , 456 F. App'x 465 ( 2012 )

Case: 10-11086 Document: 00511713207 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 4, 2012
No. 10-11086
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
WILLIAM N. OLIVER,
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
THE UNITED STATES; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS AT FCI, Fort
Worth, Texas,
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:10-CV-607
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William N. Oliver, federal prisoner # 44269-004, proceeding pro se,
challenges dismissal of his Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) complaint. The
district court determined Oliver filed his FTCA complaint in August 2010, more
than six months after the Department of Justice (DOJ) mailed a denial letter,
date-stamped 27 May 2009, for Oliver’s administrative-tort claim. The district
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 10-11086 Document: 00511713207 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2012
No. 10-11086
court concluded the complaint was, therefore, untimely under the FTCA, 28
U.S.C. § 2401(b) (six-month deadline), and dismissed it under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (district court must dismiss prisoner’s in forma pauperis
complaint if frivolous or fails to state claim).
Review is de novo. E.g., Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir.
2009). Although time-barred claims are properly dismissed under § 1915,
Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019-20 (5th Cir. 1998), a discrepancy between
the 27 May 2009 date stamp on the DOJ letter and events discussed in the letter
occurring after that date suggests the date stamp may be incorrect.
Consequently, we cannot determine whether the evidence supports the district
court’s conclusion.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is VACATED and this matter is
REMANDED to district court to determine the limitations issue, after making
appropriate factual findings on when the DOJ letter was mailed to Oliver.
2