Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01734/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01734-0/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLIVIA MAGALLANES-CASTRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1734 KJN P

ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is an immigration detainee housed in the Yolo County Detention Center, and is 

proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act 

(“FTCA”), and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United 

States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus must pay a filing fee of $400.00.1See 28 

 

1

 In addition to the $350.00 statutory fee, all parties filing civil actions on or after May 1, 2013, 

must pay an additional administrative fee of $50.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial 

Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule) (eff. May 1, 2013). However, 

the additional $50 administrative fee is waived if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Id.

Case 2:15-cv-01734-KJN Document 7 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 7
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

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only 

if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See

Rodriguez v. Gook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, “[u]nlike other indigent 

litigants, prisoners proceeding IFP must pay the full amount of filing fees in civil actions and 

appeals pursuant to the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act].” Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 

886 (9th Cir. 2002). As defined by the PLRA, a “prisoner” is “any person incarcerated or 

detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent 

for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or 

diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h). Under this definition, “an alien detained by the 

INS pending deportation is not a ‘prisoner’ within the meaning of the PLRA,” because 

deportation proceedings are civil, rather than criminal in nature, and an alien detained pending 

deportation has not necessarily been “accused of, convicted of, sentenced or adjudicated 

delinquent for, a violation of criminal law.” Agyeman, 296 F.3d at 886. Thus, because plaintiff 

claims to be an immigration detainee, and not a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), the 

filing fee provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) do not apply. 

Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

II. Screening

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). 

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 

Cir. 1984). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised 

claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

////

Case 2:15-cv-01734-KJN Document 7 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 7
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

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

III. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff alleges that on September 18, 2013, a Homeland Security bus was transferring 

United States detainees from immigration court in San Francisco to Sacramento ICE detention. 

Plaintiff contends that Officer Griffit was driving with one hand on the wheel, and the bus 

crashed on Highway 80. Plaintiff alleges that the CHP came to the scene but did not board the 

bus to see if detainees were okay. Plaintiff contends she suffers from PTSD and depression, and 

that the accident triggered her PTSD. Plaintiff alleges that the driver was negligent and engaged 

in wrongful conduct. Plaintiff names Officer Griffit, Homeland Security, G4S Security, and ICE 

as defendants.

IV. Analysis

The FTCA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for 

certain torts committed by federal employees. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). The FTCA 

provides that district courts have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions against the United States 

for money damages “for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the 

negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee” of the federal government while acting 

within the scope of his office or employment. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The FTCA allows federal

inmates to sue the United States for injuries sustained while incarcerated. 28 U.S.C. § 2674.

The United States is the only proper defendant in a suit brought pursuant to the FTCA. 

FDIC v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998); Kennedy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 

1078 (9th Cir. 1998). “A claim against [a federal agency] in its own name is not a claim against 

the United States.” Kennedy, 145 F.3d at 1078. An agency is not a proper defendant under the 

FTCA. Craft, 157 F.3d at 706 (citing Shelton v. U.S. Customs Serv., 565 F.2d 1140, 1141 (9th 

Cir. 1977)).

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act a claim must be filed with the appropriate federal

agency within two years of its accrual and suit must be commenced within six months of the 

agency’s denial of the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). This administrative exhaustion requirement is 

Case 2:15-cv-01734-KJN Document 7 Filed 09/22/15 Page 3 of 7
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

mandatory and jurisdictional. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“The FTCA 

bars claimants from bringing suit in federal court until they have exhausted their administrative 

remedies.”). Exhaustion must be affirmatively alleged in the complaint. Bettis v. Blackstone, 

2009 WL 2971364, *2 n.2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2009).

Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction under the FTCA. Industrial

Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). This court lacks jurisdiction 

over such claims unless plaintiff specifically alleges compliance with the FTCA’s administrative 

exhaustion requirement. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 640 (9th Cir. 1980) (“The timely 

filing of an administrative claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the bringing of a suit under the 

FTCA, and, as such, should be affirmatively alleged in the complaint.”) A district court may 

dismiss a complaint for failure to allege this jurisdictional prerequisite. Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 

640.

Plaintiff’s complaint contains no information concerning the filing of a tort claim, and 

provides no other information concerning her efforts to exhaust her administrative remedy. She 

fails to allege sufficient facts to enable the court to determine whether she has properly exhausted 

her administrative remedies. If plaintiff did file a claim with the appropriate agency, she must 

explain where, when, how, and with what agency her claim was filed, and when and how the 

agency responded to the claim. Therefore, this court cannot determine whether a proper and

timely claim was filed with the proper agency, or whether this suit was initiated within six months 

of the agency’s denial. 

In order to pursue a claim under the FTCA, plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that 

she (1) presented the claim to the appropriate federal agency “within two years after such claim

accrues” and that (2) plaintiff’s complaint was commenced within six months of the agency’s

denial2of the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).

////

////

 

2

 The agency denial requirement is satisfied when the claim is actually denied or six months have

passed without a final resolution having been made. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).

Case 2:15-cv-01734-KJN Document 7 Filed 09/22/15 Page 4 of 7
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

Thus, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and must be 

dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff 

chooses to amend the complaint, she is advised of the following.

The United States is not liable under the FTCA for constitutional tort claims. 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 (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 Bank, 265 F.3d at 

1025. 

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his 

amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” 

complaints). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 

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 request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

b. An original and one copy of the Amended Complaint.

Case 2:15-cv-01734-KJN Document 7 Filed 09/22/15 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 

also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of 

this action.

Dated: September 22, 2015

/maga1734.14

Case 2:15-cv-01734-KJN Document 7 Filed 09/22/15 Page 6 of 7
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLIVIA MAGALLANES-CASTRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1734 KJN P

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order

filed______________.

_____________ Amended Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-01734-KJN Document 7 Filed 09/22/15 Page 7 of 7