NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
BESSIE IRENE WALTZ, No. 10-15713
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01691-SMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sandra M. Snyder, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2011**
Pasadena, California
Before: ALARCÓN, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Bessie Waltz appeals from the district court’s dismissal
of her claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. She argues that she is entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. ¶. 34(a)(2).
period established in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). However, as Waltz admits, we have
previously held that § 2401(b) establishes a jurisdictional limitation that is not
subject to equitable tolling. See Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th
Cir. 2009) (“[W]e hold that the six-month statute of limitations in § 2401(b) is
jurisdictional and that failure to file a claim within that time period deprives the
federal courts of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the doctrines of equitable estoppel and
equitable tolling do not apply.”). Contrary to Waltz’s assertions, the Supreme
Court’s recent decision in Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (2010),
did not overturn this decision, and Marley continues to control.
AFFIRMED.