FTCA Presentment Clarified: Administrative Remedy Program Filings Insufficient

Introduction

This commentary examines the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Daniel L. Morgan v. United States, No. 23-12875 (11th Cir. Feb. 20, 2025), which clarified the manner and timing for “presenting” Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims against the United States. The plaintiff, Daniel Morgan, a federal inmate, alleged that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) under-treated his degenerative disc disease. Morgan pursued relief first through the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program and later via a Standard Form 95. The district court held that his FTCA claim was time-barred, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, establishing that Administrative Remedy Program submissions do not satisfy the FTCA’s presentment requirement.

Summary of the Judgment

The court held:

Morgan’s FTCA claim accrued on January 18, 2018—the date he discovered alternative treatments he believed had been withheld.
The FTCA’s statute of limitations requires written presentment of a tort claim to the appropriate federal agency within two years after accrual. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).
Morgan submitted his Standard Form 95 on May 6, 2020 (received June 16, 2020), more than two years after accrual. That was untimely.
His April 5, 2019 request under the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program was not a tort-claims presentment under 28 C.F.R. § 14.2 and thus did not toll or satisfy the FTCA deadline.
The district court’s grant of summary judgment for the United States was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

28 U.S.C. § 2401(b): Establishes the two-year statute of limitations for FTCA claims.
28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) & 28 C.F.R. § 14.2: Require written presentment of an FTCA claim to the proper federal agency before suit.
Barnett v. Okeechobee Hosp., 283 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2002): Holds a claim not presented within two years after accrual is “forever barred.”
Suarez v. United States, 22 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 1994): Describes FTCA as the waiver of sovereign immunity conditioned upon presentment.
United States v. Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (2015): Confirms the FTCA’s time limit is a statute of limitations, not jurisdictional.
Douglas v. United States, 814 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2016): Explains that BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program is distinct from FTCA procedures.

Legal Reasoning

The court began with the well-settled rule that an FTCA plaintiff must present a written claim to the proper federal agency within two years of accrual. It then determined that Morgan’s claim accrued no later than January 18, 2018—the date on which he learned the allegedly omitted treatments existed.

Next, it examined Morgan’s procedural steps:

On April 5, 2019, Morgan filed an Administrative Remedy Program request with the BOP. The regulation governing that program (28 C.F.R. Part 542) allows inmates to seek review of confinement issues but does not provide monetary relief.
The BOP repeatedly informed Morgan that his remedy program filing could not yield monetary compensation and directed him to file a tort claim under the FTCA.
On May 6, 2020 (received June 16), Morgan submitted Standard Form 95, the prescribed FTCA claim form. That date lay more than two years after accrual.

The Eleventh Circuit observed that 28 C.F.R. § 14.2(b)(1) obligates an agency that improperly receives an FTCA claim to “transfer it forthwith” to the correct agency. But § 14.2 applies only to filings that are tort claims under the FTCA. Morgan’s Administrative Remedy Program request was not an FTCA claim and thus presented no tort claim to transfer. The BOP’s consistent guidance—that monetary claims require a Standard Form 95—reinforced that distinction. Because Morgan did not timely present a valid FTCA claim, his lawsuit was barred.

Impact

This decision carries several practical consequences:

Prisoner‐litigant guidance: Inmates must understand that grievances under the Administrative Remedy Program do not satisfy FTCA presentment. They need to file Standard Form 95 within two years of accrual.
Agency procedures: Federal agencies and their counsel are reminded to direct claimants clearly to FTCA procedures when monetary damages are sought.
Judicial consistency: Reinforces the separation between administrative grievance systems and the FTCA’s presentment requirement, reducing confusion in future FTCA litigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Accrual: The moment a plaintiff knows of an injury and its cause. For medical‐malpractice FTCA claims, accrual occurs when the claimant becomes aware of both.
Presentment: The act of submitting a written demand for money damages to the appropriate federal agency, usually via Standard Form 95.
Standard Form 95: The official form for FTCA administrative claims. Agencies cannot consider monetary relief requests made through other programs as FTCA presentment.
Statute of Limitations vs. Jurisdiction: The two-year deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) is a time limit, not a jurisdictional bar. Courts still have authority to decide the merits if a claim is timely.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Morgan v. United States reaffirms that the FTCA’s presentment requirement demands a timely, written tort claim—most commonly on Standard Form 95—submitted to the correct federal agency within two years of accrual. Administrative Remedy Program filings alone do not satisfy this requirement. This clarification will help district courts, federal agencies, and pro se litigants navigate the distinct pathways for prisoner grievances and federal tort claims, ensuring proper and timely FTCA presentment in the future.