Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00936/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00936-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Plaintiff’s attempt to pursue this as a class action and Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, as 1

raised in the complaint, were addressed by the Court in its order filed on July 31, 2007. (Doc. 7.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES S. DAVIS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES 

OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00936-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 1)

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff James S. Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action, filed on June 28, 2007. Plaintiff names the United States, the Federal

Bureau of Prisons, GEO, Inc., Jeff Wrigley, Dale Patrick, and Yenny Lopez as defendants. Due to

the naming of defendants in addition to the United States, this action shall be construed as one

brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971), which recognized a cause of action for damages for violation of civil rights by federal

actors, as well as pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, authorizes tort actions against the United

States. Plaintiff is seeking money damages and equitable relief. 1

///

Case 1:07-cv-00936-LJO -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/16/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the liberal pleading

standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330

n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements

of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257

(9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claim

A. BOP and GEO as Defendants

“The United States is the only proper defendant in a [Federal Tort Claims Act] action.”

Lance v. United States, 70 F.3d 1093, 1095 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Woods v. United States, 720 F.2d

1451, 1452 n.1 (9th Cir. 1983)). Further, a Bivens claim is not available against a federal agency,

FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994), or a private corporation, Correctional Serv. Corp. v.

Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 63 (2001). As a result, neither the BOP nor GEO, Inc. is a proper defendant

in this action. 

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00936-LJO -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants have a duty under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972) 2

“to create, publish, teach and supervise a policy of compliance and recognition of the Gunning Order requirement.” 

(Doc. 1, 3:13-15.) The Giglio case concerned the non-disclosure of material evidence at trial, in violation of the Due

Process Clause. The Supreme Court held that a new trial was required and reversed the conviction. Plaintiff’s

citation to Giglio does not support his asserted proposition.

3

B. Claims Arising from Gunning Violation

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are taking funds from his trust account in violation of United

States v. Gunning, 401 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2005), which disallows anyone other than the court from

setting a payment schedule. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Lopez coerced him into signing

a payment agreement.2

District courts may not delegate their duty to set payment schedules for restitution pursuant

to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996. Gunning, 401 F.3d at 1150. However, the

decision in Gunning does not preclude prison officials from setting a collection schedule for fines.

Id.; Montano-Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff’s complaint is

devoid of any facts concerning the nature of the deductions being made from his trust account.

Because Gunning does not stand for the proposition that prison officials may not set a payment

collection schedule under any circumstance, Plaintiff’s omission concerning the circumstances of

the deduction is fatal to his claim. 

The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint clarifying

the basis for his claims in this action. In amending, Plaintiff must set forth the grounds for liability

against each named defendant. For Defendants Wrigley, Patrick, and Lopez, this includes alleging

what they did or did not do that led to the violation of Plaintiff’s rights under federal law.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under the FTCA

or Bivens. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing

the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order. Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit

by adding new, unrelated claimsin his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th

Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). In amending his complaint, Plaintiff shall take note of the

following guidelines.

Case 1:07-cv-00936-LJO -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/16/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

For any Bivens claims, Plaintiff must demonstrate in his complaint how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625

F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in brief but specific terms how each named

defendant is involved. There can be no liability unless there is some affirmative link or connection

between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976);

May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.

1978). Supervisory personnel cannot be held liable in a Bivens action for the actions of their

employees under a theory of respondeat superior. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.

1991).

The United States is not liable under the FTCA for constitutional tort claims. FDIC v.

Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 478 (1994); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1111 (9th Cir. 1995). The

FTCA authorizes tort actions against the United States if the United States, as a private person,

would be liable to Plaintiff under California tort law. United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43, 126 S.Ct.

510, 511 (2005); Delta Savings Bank v. United States, 265 F.3d 1017, 1025 (9th Cir. 2001). Any

duty owed to Plaintiff by the United States “must be found in California state tort law.” Delta

Saving Banks, 265 F.3d at 1025.

 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

(9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original

complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing

to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at

1474.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint; 

Case 1:07-cv-00936-LJO -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/16/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this

action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00936-LJO -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/16/08 Page 5 of 5