Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00795/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00795-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

REZA HOSSNIEH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.S. MARSHALS, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-00795-TLN-AC 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned 

by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

 Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that she is unable to 

prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma 

pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 

action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227–28 (9th 

Case 2:15-cv-00795-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 04/30/15 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

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. 

 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond a doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital 

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

Plaintiff alleges that on April 9, 2014, she was transferred from Sacramento County Jail to 

a facility in Pahrump, Nevada (hereinafter “the Pahrump Facility”). ECF No. 1 at 1. While 

plaintiff was being transferred, the Sacramento County Deputies were supposed to hand some of 

her property over to the U.S. Marshals to be picked up by members of plaintiff’s family. Id. 

Instead, the deputies threw plaintiff’s property away. Id. When plaintiff asked Sacramento 

County to reimburse her for her lost property she was told that she would have to contact the U.S. 

Marshals because she was a federal prisoner. Id. The U.S. Marshals, in turn, told her to file a tort 

claim if she wanted to be reimbursed. Id. 

Nevertheless, plaintiff apparently had some of her property with her at the time of her 

transfer. Id. When she was transferred a second time to a federal facility on April 21, 2014, her 

remaining property was supposed to be mailed home to her family. Id. Members of plaintiff’s 

family sent the Pahrump Facility $18 for postage fees but the facility lost plaintiff’s property and 

kept the $18. Id. Plaintiff was again told that she would have to obtain any reimbursement from 

the U.S. Marshals, who again told her that she would have to file a tort claim. Id. at 1–2. 

Plaintiff seeks $1,500 as reimbursement for her lost property from the U.S. Marshals. Id. at 2. 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-00795-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 04/30/15 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 

3

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a short and plain statement 

showing why she is entitled to relief as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). 

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice 

and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 

733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The facts alleged in plaintiff’s complaint are commendably 

clear and the relief sought well articulated; however, plaintiff does not explain the legal basis for 

her claim. The only clue plaintiff has given as to what cause of action she may be intending to 

pursue is the fact that the U.S. Marshals instructed her to file “a tort claim.” ECF No. 1 at 1–2. 

Plaintiff, however, cannot bring a tort claim against the U.S. Marshals. 

“As sovereign, the United States ‘can be sued only to the extent that it has waived its 

immunity’ from suit.” O’Toole v. United States, 295 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2002). And while 

the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) does waive the government’s immunity from tort claims, 

28 U.S.C. § 2674, it does not authorize tort claims based on the “detention of any . . . property by 

any . . . law enforcement officer.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c); see also United States v. Norwood, 602 

F.3d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 2010). This means that plaintiff cannot state a FTCA claim against the 

U.S. Marshals based on the loss of her property while in custody. See Bramwell v. U.S. Bureau 

of Prisons, 348 F.3d 804, 806 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that U.S. Bureau of Prisons officers 

constitute “law enforcement officers” under § 2680(c) in accordance with the majority, more 

expansive interpretation of the term). Even if plaintiff could state a FTCA claim against the U.S. 

Marshals she would still have to allege exhaustion of her administrative remedies, which she has 

not done. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225, 234 (2007). 

Although plaintiff cannot bring a FTCA claim against the U.S. Marshals, she is not 

without a remedy. 31 U.S.C. § 3724 authorizes the Attorney General to settle claims for losses up 

to $50,000 caused by law enforcement personnel. It merits noting that the statute does not 

provide for any judicial review of the Attorney General’s decision. 31 U.S.C. § 3724(b); 

Norwood, 602 F.3d at 836 (“We note the absence of judicial review of the Attorney General's 

decision on whether or on what terms to settle a claim . . . . In other words, victims of torts by 

federal law enforcement agents are remitted to an administrative remedy that is final.”). 

Case 2:15-cv-00795-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 04/30/15 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

Plaintiff is cautioned that if she chooses to file an amended complaint, she must submit a 

short and plain statement in accordance with Federal Rule 8(a) pointing to some cognizable legal 

theory that entitles her to relief. Any amended complaint must also show that the federal court 

has jurisdiction, the action is brought in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if her 

allegations are true. The amended complaint should contain separately numbered, clearly 

identified claims. 

In addition, the allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially numbered 

paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each paragraph 

having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the complaint. 

Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where possible. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 10(b). Plaintiff must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiff must avoid 

narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what 

happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor 

give a running account of plaintiff’s hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should 

contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff. 

Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once 

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the 

case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the 

involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED; 

 2. Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed; and 

 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the 

Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case 

and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of 

Case 2:15-cv-00795-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 04/30/15 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

the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will 

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: April 29, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00795-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 5