Mullen

MEMORANDUM *

Mullen’s administrative claims complied ■with the “minimal” requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). Shipek v. United States, 752 F.2d 1352, 1354 (9th Cir.1985). The claim stated a sum certain and put the agencies on “sufficient notice to commence investigation.” Id. at 1354 . Accordingly, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Mullen’s claims. We therefore remand to the district court for further proceedings on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

There was probable cause to support Mullen’s bribery prosecution. Scott Gale declared that he had heard several tape recorded conversations in which Mullen, and associates purporting to act on his behalf, offered money to a public official in exchange for official acts. Mullen’s only rebuttal to this is that the tapes Gale listened to were altered. Mullen has not come forward with sufficient evidence in this civil proceeding to support this theory. See Fed R. Civ. P. 56(e) (to preclude summary judgment, party “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial”). In any event, in his affidavit in district court, the only taped recorded conversation that he…