James James v. United States

467 F. App'x 611

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 25, 2012
• Docket: 10-17535
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Former federal prisoner James W. James appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) and the Federal Tort Claims Act (the “FTCA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 619 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed James’s claim against the individual defendants because he failed to establish that their alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs at a facility in Rochester, Minnesota constituted minimum contacts with the forum state to warrant exercising personal jurisdiction over them. See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir.2004) (three-pronged minimum contacts analysis); see also Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (“effects” test for a prong of the minimum contacts analysis).

The district court properly dismissed James’s constitutional claim against the United States on the basis of sovereign immunity. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 477-78, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for claims of alleged constitutional violations).

The district court properly dismissed James’s FTCA claim against the United States because he failed to file it within six months of the date of the notice of denial of his administrative claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); see also Hatchell v. United States, 776 F.2d 244, 246 (9th Cir.1985) (FTCA action commenced three days beyond the six-month limitations period was barred).

James’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed waived. See Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

*** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.