Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00458/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00458-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY UDOM,

Detainee No. A023503206,

Civil No. 12cv0458 LAB (PCL)

Plaintiff, ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,

Defendants.

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 21, 2012, Anthony Udom (“Plaintiff”), currently detained at the San Diego

Correctional Facility located in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil action. 

Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed

a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 2]. 

In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Recusal. [ECF No. 4.] 

On April 11, 2012, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, denied the

Motion for Recusal and dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim and seeking money

damages against immune defendants. [ECF No. 5]. On April 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed his First

Amended Complaint (“FAC”). [ECF no. 6].

H:\BACKUP\wp{wp}.bk1 -1- 12cv0458 LAB (PCL)

Case 3:12-cv-00458-LAB-PCL Document 7 Filed 05/11/12 Page 1 of 3
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

II.

SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

As the Court stated in its previous Order, any complaint filed by a person proceeding IFP

is subject to sua sponte dismissal by the Court to the extent it contains claims which are

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

relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl,

254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (holding that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an

in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”). “[W]hen determining whether a

complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all allegations of material fact and must

construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,

447 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)

(§ 1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”).

While Plaintiff purportedly brings this First Amended Complaint pursuant to the Federal

Torts Claim Act (“FTCA”), he fails to name the United States as a Defendant in this action. The

Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680, provides that the

sovereign immunity of the United States is waived for suits resulting from torts “caused by the

negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government ... under

circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in

accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).

Thus, Plaintiff’s FTCA claims against the individual Defendants fail because the United States

is the only proper defendant for an FTCA claim against a federal employee for actions taken

within the scope of their employment. See Ward v. Gordon, 999 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir.

1993).

While Plaintiff will be provided leave to file an Amended Complaint, he may not

ultimately be able to proceed in this action. The FTCA also provides that an “action shall not be

instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages” until the claimant has

H:\BACKUP\wp{wp}.bk1 -2- 12cv0458 LAB (PCL)

Case 3:12-cv-00458-LAB-PCL Document 7 Filed 05/11/12 Page 2 of 3
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

exhausted their administrative remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Here, it is not clear that Plaintiff

has exhausted his administrative remedies prior to initiating this suit. Thus, Plaintiff is

cautioned that this action may later be dismissed if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

because Plaintiff did not exhaust these claims prior to bringing this action. See McNeil v. U.S.,

508 U.S. 106 (1993) (parties must exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing suit under

the FTCA).

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to

state a claimupon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). However,

Plaintiff is further GRANTED forty five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed in

which to file a Second Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading noted

above. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to his

previous pleading. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not realleged in the Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

567 (9th Cir. 1987).

DATED: May 10, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

H:\BACKUP\wp{wp}.bk1 -3- 12cv0458 LAB (PCL)

Case 3:12-cv-00458-LAB-PCL Document 7 Filed 05/11/12 Page 3 of 3