CA1: Can’t get no exhaustion

Acosta v. US Marshals Service, No. 05-1733 affirms the dismissal of an FTCA suit against the marshalls who incarcerated Acosta at various “in several county jail facilities with which it contracts; he also spent time in two federal facilities.”  Applying the PLRA, the court found that the defendant had not exhausted his “administrative” remedies.  The court notes that it treats the exhaustion requirements of the PLRA as an affirmative defense, but Acosta had mailed his administrative claim to the Marshal Service, and “Nothing in Acosta's brief explains how filing a claim with the Marshals Service could constitute adequate notice to a Maine or New Hampshire entity or otherwise encourage administrative resolution of the matter.”  Indeed, even though the Marshals service and the Bureau of Prisons, are part of the Department of Justice, the court concludes that service administrative complaints must be on the appropriate organ.   Therefore, other issues regarding whether independent contracts treated him negligently, and whether they are actionable under the FTCA are also dismissed because they were not properly administratively exhausted.  The District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction against various non-state actors, however.