Andrews v. United States

Docket 3:25-cv-00166

Filed
2025-08-01
Terminated
Not recorded
Case type
cv

Outcome

lack of jurisdiction

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=7- OFFICE=3 DOCKET=2500166 FILEDATE=08/01/2025 DISP=3, PROCPROG=4, JUDGMENT=0; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA FAITH ANDREWS, as Mother and Guardian ) of A.A., a minor child, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) N o . 3 : 2 5 - c v -0166-HRH Defendant. ) _______________________________________) O R D E R Motion to Dismiss1 Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdic- tion. The motion is opposed.2 Defendant has replied.3 An accident occurred at Quyana House at the Alaska Native Medical Center, a government-sponsored facility, on September 9, 2024.4 The incident involved Faith Andrews and her daughter A.A. A standard Form SF-95, a claim for damage, injury, or death, was signed on September 11, 2024,5 by “Faith Andrews.” The Form SF-95 might 1Docket No. 9. 2Docket No. 11. 3Docket No. 13. 4Docket No. 10-1 at 1, Item 6. 5Id. at 1, Item 14. ORDER – Motion to Dismiss - 1 - have been, but was not, presented by Faith Andrews in a representative capacity.6 The Faith Andrews standard Form SF-95 was transmitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services by Faith Andrews’ attorney by certified mail on September 13, 2024.7 Again, the Form SF-95 was signed and presented in the name of Faith Andrews. It was not signed by Faith Andrews in a representative capacity. The claim of Faith Andrews was denied by the Department of Health and Human Services by certified mail on May 23, 2025.8 Within six months of the foregoing notice of denial of claim of Faith Andrews’ claim, a complaint was filed in this court by Faith Andrews as “mother and guardian of A.A., a minor child.”9 There is a fatal disconnect between Faith Andrews’ administrative claim and the complaint of Faith Andrews as mother and guardian of A.A. Pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a): An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for injury ... unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail. 6Id. at 1, Item 2. See also the “instructions” (a part of Form SF-95), which provide that: A claim presented by an agent or legal representative must be presented in the name of the claimant. If the claim is signed by the agent or legal representative, it must show the title or legal capacity of the person signing and be accompanied by evidence of his/her authority to present a claim on behalf of the claimant as agent, executor, administrator, parent, guard- ian or other representative. 7Docket No. 11-1. 8Docket No. 13-1 at 1 and 2. 9Docket No. 1. ORDER – Motion to Dismiss - 2 - Here, Faith Andrews presented a claim to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in her own name, not in a representative capacity. That claim was denied. The claim of Faith Andrews as mother and guardian of A.A., a minor child, was not pre- ceded by the filing and processing of a Form SF-95 on behalf of A.A. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional and may not be waived. Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1992). Defendant’s motion to dismiss, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, is granted. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 26th day of January, 2026. /s/ H. Russel Holland United States District Judge ORDER – Motion to Dismiss - 3 -

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.