Bluford v. United States

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided May 15, 2024·No. 2:24-cv-00509·Unknown

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Derek Bluford, No. CV-24-00509-PHX-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 United States of America, 13 Defendant.

15 On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff Derek Bluford, who is confined in the United States 16 Penitentiary-Lompoc, filed a pro se Verified Complaint and paid the filing and 17 administrative fees. In an April 10, 2024 Order, the Court dismissed the Verified 18 Complaint because it was not filed on this Court’s approved form for filing a civil rights 19 Complaint by a prisoner. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint 20 using the court-approved form included with the Order. 21 On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 6). The Court 22 will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 23 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 25 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 27 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 28 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 1 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 2 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 3 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 4 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 5 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 6 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 7 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 8 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 9 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 10 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 11 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 12 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 13 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 14 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 15 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 16 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 17 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 18 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 19 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 20 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 21 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 22 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 23 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 24 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 25 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, but 26 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 27 to amend. 28 . . . . 1 II. Discussion of First Amended Complaint 2 In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in the amount of 3 $30,000,000 from the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Plaintiff 4 asserts nine claims of medical negligence and one count of fraud regarding medical care 5 he received while he was confined in the Federal Correctional Institution-Phoenix. 6 Under the statutory procedure set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), a “tort claimant may 7 not commence proceedings in court against the United States without first filing h[is] claim 8 with an appropriate federal agency and either receiving a conclusive denial of the claim 9 from the agency or waiting for six months to elapse without a final disposition of the claim 10 being made.” Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1992); see Brady v. 11 United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000) (a claimant under the FTCA must comply 12 with § 2675(a) before a district court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the 13 claim); Caton v. United States, 495 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1974). The Ninth Circuit Court 14 of Appeals has “repeatedly held that this ‘claim requirement of section 2675 is 15 jurisdictional in nature and may not be waived.’” Jerves, 966 F.2d at 519 (quoting Burns 16 v. United States, 764 F.2d 722, 724 (9th Cir. 1985)). 17 Plaintiff has failed to allege that he complied with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2675. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the FTCA, and the First 19 Amended Complaint will be dismissed. 20 III. Leave to Amend 21 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a second amended complaint to cure the 22 deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form 23 to use for filing a second amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved 24 form, the Court may strike the second amended complaint and dismiss this action without 25 further notice to Plaintiff. 26 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Second 27 Amended Complaint.” The second amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 28 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 1 Complaint or First Amended Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim 2 per count. 3 A second amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint and First Amended 4 Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. 5 Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court 6 will treat the original Complaint and First Amended Complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 7 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the original Complaint or First 8 Amended Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without 9 prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a second amended complaint. Lacey v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bluford v. United States, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Bluford v. United States (Bluford v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Green v. Biddle
21 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1823)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Estelle E. Caton v. United States of America
495 F.2d 635 (Ninth Circuit, 1974)
Robert F. Burns v. United States
764 F.2d 722 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Mildred Jerves v. United States
966 F.2d 517 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Clarissa Brady,plaintiff-Appellant v. United States
211 F.3d 499 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)