Ramos-Quiroz v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRISTOBAL RAMOS-QUIROZ, No. 1:24-cv-00701-JLT-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 13 v.

14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15 Defendant.

16 17 The instant action was transferred to this Court by the United States Court of Federal 18 Claims on June 17, 2024. (ECF Nos. 1, 7.) 19 I. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff previously filed an action in this Court pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 22 Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which was dismissed on 23 September 20, 2021, for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. See Quiroz v. United States 24 of America, No. 1:21-cv-00364-AWI-SAB (PC). 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed an action in the United States Court of Federal Claims 2 seeking relief for unjust conviction and imprisonment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495 and 2513. Prior 3 to a response from the government, the action was dismissed for Plaintiff to seek the 4 jurisdictionally required certificate of innocence. (ECF No. 6 at 6.) 5 On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals 6 for the Federal Circuit. (Id.) Therein, Plaintiff attached a November 16, 2023, letter from ICE 7 denying his December 13, 2022 Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim alleging he was 8 wrongfully deported based on a wrongful conviction. (Id.) 9 On June 13, 2024, the United States Court of Federal Claims found that Plaintiff 10 “intended to comply with the instructions included in the November 13, 2023 ICE letter and 11 challenge the agency’s denial of his FTCA claim by filing suit in the ‘appropriate United States 12 District Court.’ ” (ECF No. 6 at 7.) The Court found that because it was not the proper forum to 13 hear the FTCA suit, rather than dismiss the action, it was transferred to this Court and docketed as 14 a new case. (Id. at 8.) More specifically, the Court stated “[t]he reason for these unorthodox 15 actions is simple: [Plaintiff] improvidently docketed and transmitted notice of appeal does not 16 relate to the action originally filed (and voluntary dismissed) in this Court and is clearly 17 untimely.” (Id.) 18 As the case presently stands, there is no operative complaint on file upon which this Court 19 can determine what, if any, claims Plaintiff intends to bring in this action.1 Thus, in order for this 20 action to proceed, Plaintiff must submit an operative complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint should be 21 brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each named defendant did that led to the 22 deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as 23 true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative 24 level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). Further, Plaintiff is informed that the 25 Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff’s complaint complete. Local Rule 26 220 requires that a complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 27 1 Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis the Court is obligated to screen Plaintiff’s operative complaint sua 28 sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 1 Il. 2 ORDER 3 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall submit 5 an operative complaint which shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length; 6 and 7 2. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss the 8 action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 11 | Dated: _August 22, 2024 _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28