Marley

Marley v. United States

Bad Law
567 F.3d 1030·2009 WL 1508584·2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13591
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 1, 200906-36003California3,398 words

Opinion

Opinion

Graber, J.

ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION

ORDER

The opinion filed December 8, 2008, slip op. at 16067, 548 F.3d 1286 , is replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. With these amendments, Judges Graber and Rawlinson have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Wright has so recommended.

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge of the court called for a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. On such vote, a majority of the nonrecused active judges failed to vote in favor of en banc rehearing. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or for rehearing en banc will be entertained.

OPINION

We must decide whether the statute of limitations in § 2401(b) of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2401 (b), is jurisdictional and, in turn, whether courts can employ the doctrines of equitable estoppel or equitable tolling to extend the limitations period. We hold that the statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2401 (b) is jurisdictional and, consequently, that equitable doctrines that otherwise could excuse a claimant’s untimely filing do not apply.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.