Porraz v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedSeptember 26, 2025
Docket4:25-cv-00134
StatusUnknown

This text of Porraz v. United States (Porraz v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Porraz v. United States, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Ruben Porraz, No. CV-25-00134-TUC-SHR 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 United States of America, 13 Defendant.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Ruben Porraz was confined in the Federal Correctional 16 Institution-Tucson (FCI-Tucson) when he filed his Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to the 17 Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), but he is no longer in custody. After Plaintiff filed his 18 Complaint, the Court informed Plaintiff he had not paid the filing and administrative fees 19 for this action or filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and gave him 30 days 20 to cure this deficiency. 21 Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion (Doc. 4) seeking additional time to pay the 22 fees and then paid the filing and administrative fees. The Court will grant the Motion, 23 consider the fees timely paid, and dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 24 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 25 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 26 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 28 has raised legally frivolous or malicious claims, fails to state a claim upon which relief may 1 be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 2 § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 3 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 5 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 6 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 7 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 9 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 11 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 12 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 13 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 14 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 15 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 16 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 17 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 18 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 19 must “continue to construe [self-represented litigant’s] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 20 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 21 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 22 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 23 If the Court determines a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a 24 self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 25 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 26 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim but will give him leave 27 to amend. 28 . . . . 1 II. Complaint 2 Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendant United States seeks monetary damages. 3 Plaintiff alleges prior to being transferred to the Michigan Department of Corrections 4 (MDOC) for a “state placement,” he asked his unit manager and case manager at FCI- 5 Tucson whether he would “be safe at MDOC as a dropout Latin King.” He claims both 6 individuals told him he would be safe. After he was transferred, Plaintiff asserts he was 7 stabbed “because MDOC put [him] in general population with active gang members.” He 8 contends he suffered multiple stab wounds, bruising, loss of blood, extreme pain, scarring, 9 limited left-shoulder mobility, and emotional distress. 10 III. Failure to State a Claim 11 Although pleadings filed by self-represented litigants are liberally construed, 12 Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 342, conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of 13 action, Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal 14 interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim not 15 initially pled. Id. 16 Federal courts only have jurisdiction over an FTCA claim “if it alleges the six 17 elements of [28 U.S.C.] § 1346(b).” Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209, 212 (2021). Those 18 elements are that the claim is: 19 [1] against the United States, [2] for money damages, . . . [3] for injury 20 or loss of property, or personal injury or death [4] caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the 21 Government [5] while acting within the scope of his office or employment, [6] under circumstances where the United States, if a 22 private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the 23 law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 24 Id. (quoting F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 477 (1994)). 25 It is unclear from Plaintiff’s allegations how any federal employee’s “negligent or 26 wrongful act or omission” caused his injuries. Indeed, it appears Plaintiff’s injuries were 27 caused, if at all, by acts or omissions of employees of the MDOC. Absent more, Plaintiff’s 28 allegations are insufficient to state a claim under the FTCA. 1 IV. Leave to Amend 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to 3 state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a 4 first amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will 5 mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff 6 fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the amended complaint and 7 dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 8 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 9 Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 10 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 11 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 12 A first amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 13 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 14 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat the original 15 Complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action raised in the 16 original Complaint and voluntarily dismissed or dismissed without prejudice is waived if 17 it is not alleged in a first amended complaint.

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

Related

Livingston & Gilchrist v. Maryland Insurance
11 U.S. 506 (Supreme Court, 1813)
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer
510 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Brownback v. King
592 U.S. 209 (Supreme Court, 2021)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Porraz v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porraz-v-united-states-azd-2025.