12.08.2013 Views

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ...

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ...

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

5<br />

F.2d 20. Zeleznik was an action against the Immigration and<br />

Naturalization Service (“INS”) for the wrongful death of the<br />

plaintiffs’ son. The plaintiffs sued the INS when they<br />

discovered, more than two years after their son’s death, that the<br />

INS had released their son’s killer just days before the murder<br />

even though the killer had confessed to the INS that he did not<br />

have an authorized status in the United States, was in fraudulent<br />

possession of a United States passport, and had been involved<br />

in illegal drug sales. Id. at 20-22.<br />

We held in Zeleznik that the FTCA’s two-year statute of<br />

limitations barred the plaintiffs’ claim because it had accrued<br />

when they learned of their son’s death and its immediate cause.<br />

Thus, they were put on notice of the need to investigate their<br />

claim even though at the time of his death they had not learned<br />

of the INS’s involvement. We explained, following the<br />

Supreme Court’s decision in Kubrick, that “the accrual date is<br />

not postponed until the injured party knows every fact necessary<br />

to bring his action.” Id. at 23. Because the plaintiffs knew of<br />

their son’s death and its immediate cause, even though they did<br />

not know of the INS’s involvement, they possessed sufficient<br />

critical facts to investigate their claim, and inasmuch as the INS<br />

did not actively conceal its involvement in the case, the accrual<br />

of the claim was not postponed by reason of the plaintiffs’ lack<br />

of actual notice of that involvement. Id. at 24.<br />

But the issue here is not when Santos’s claim accrued, as<br />

5<br />

At oral argument, the Government stated that Zeleznik is our<br />

most directly applicable precedent governing in this case.<br />

22

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!