Dukes v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 31, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00284
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Meloniece Dukes, No. CV-25-00284-PHX-JJT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 United States of America,

13 Defendant. 14 15 At issue is pro se Plaintiff Meloniece Dukes’s Application to Proceed in District 16 Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). Having determined that Plaintiff does not 17 have the means to pay the Court’s fees in this case, the Court grants the Application. 18 However, as set forth below, upon screening Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1, Compl.) 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim is time-barred. 20 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 21 A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 22 For cases in which a party is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis—that is, the 23 party lacks the means to pay court fees—Congress provided that a district court “shall 24 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that the “allegation of poverty is untrue” 25 or that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which 26 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 27 such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 28 proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). “It is also clear that section 1 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis 2 complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. at 1127. 3 B. Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4 A complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 5 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must contain “sufficient 6 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 7 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 8 544, 570 (2007)). Thus, a dismissal for failure to state a claim can be based on either (1) 9 the lack of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts to support a cognizable legal 10 claim. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Rule 8(a) also 11 provides that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain 12 statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” In other words, to proceed in federal 13 court, a plaintiff must allege enough in the complaint for the court to conclude it has subject 14 matter jurisdiction. See Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 5 Fed. Practice & 15 Procedure § 1206 (3d ed. 2014). 16 II. ANALYSIS 17 In the Complaint, Plaintiff raises a single claim for medical negligence, alleging the 18 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), through one of its medical care facilities, prescribed 19 her narcotic medication in 2012, and “[a]s a direct result of taking the prescribed narcotic 20 medication, she has suffered severe and ongoing adverse effects.” (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 6.) She filed 21 an administrative claim with the VA under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) on 22 October 14, 2024, and the VA denied the claim as “barred by the federal two-year Statute of 23 Limitations” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 8; Compl. at 5, VA Letter.) 24 Under the FTCA, “a tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred 25 unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years after 26 such claim accrues.” 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). Federal law requires claimants to file 27 administrative claims prior to initiating suit to allow the appropriate federal agency to 28 determine whether the claim should be voluntarily paid out or if the agency should seek settlement. Poindexter v. United States, 647 F.2d 34, 36 (9th Cir. 1981). An FTCA claim || for medical malpractice does not accrue “until a plaintiff knows of both the existence of an || injury and its cause.” Bennett v. United States, 44 F.4th 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2022). Likewise, under Arizona law, a medical malpractice claim must be brought within a two-year statute 5 || of limitations period. A.R.S. § 12-542. 6 The Court agrees with the VA decision holding that Plaintiffs claim is time barred. □□ Although Plaintiff alleges that she “continues to suffer harm” from ingesting narcotics 13 8 || years after the VA allegedly prescribed them to her, no allegations plausibly support the conclusion that a reasonable person would not have been on notice of the alleged || negligence for 13 years or that the negligence was somehow concealed from Plaintiff. 11 If a defective complaint can be cured, a plaintiff is entitled to amend the complaint || before the action is dismissed. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127-30. The Court does not find that 13 || Plaintiff can cure the statute of limitations defect by amendment, and the Court will thus 14|| dismiss this case without leave to amend. 15 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in || District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) as time- 18 |} barred without leave to amend. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and 20 || close this matter. 21 Dated this 31st day of January, 2025. CN 22 “wok: 3 Unifgd State#District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

-3-