SEKAYI WHITE V. USA, No. 19-15221 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 8 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEKAYI RUDO WHITE, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-15221 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01829-CKD MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Carolyn K. Delaney, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted May 6, 2020*** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Sekayi Rudo White appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) arising from the alleged depletion of funds from two of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). White’s Washington Mutual accounts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction White’s action because White failed to file an administrative tort claim with the United States prior to initiating his civil action. See id. (explaining that the FTCA’s administrative claim requirement is jurisdictional and “must be strictly adhered to”). White has alleged no other cognizable legal claims against the United States related to the depletion of his funds. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (concluding pro se appellant abandoned issues not argued in his opening brief). White’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 19-15221

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.