Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01260/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01260-2/pdf.json

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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\06-1260-sac.wpd 1 06cv1260

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR MARTINEZ,

# A30-700-636,

Civil No. 06-1260 L (JMA) 

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2) 

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

I. Procedural History

Victor Martinez, a Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“BICE”) detainee

proceeding pro se and currently housed at the San Pedro Processing Center, submitted a civil

action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) on June 30,

2006 [Doc. No. 1]. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, while he was incarcerated at the San

Diego Correctional Facility (“SDCF”) in San Diego, various Corrections Corporation of

America (“CCA”) Security Officers responsible for operating SDCF violated his constitutional

rights.

////

////

Case 3:06-cv-01260-L-JMA Document 29 Filed 09/06/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\06-1260-sac.wpd 2 06cv1260

The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis but sua sponte

dismissed his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because he failed to state a claim

upon which relief could be granted. See Jan. 8, 2007 Order at 4-5. However, the Court granted

Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies of pleading noted in the

Court’s Order. Id. at 5. 

On March 29, 2007, after seeking an extension of time to file a First Amended Complaint,

Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion to File First Amended Complaint as [Ordered] by the

Court Pursuant to the FRCP” [Doc. No. 17]. However, in the body of this motion, Plaintiff

stated that he was, in fact, submitting his First Amended Complaint. Thus, the Court filed this

“motion” as Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Because of Plaintiff’s apparent confusion,

the Court dismissed this First Amended Complaint and informed Plaintiff that he would have

the opportunity to correct the deficiencies of pleading by filing a Second Amended Complaint.

After granting Plaintiff several extensions of time, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended

Complaint (“SAC”) on August 10, 2007. 

II. Sua Sponte Screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

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).”). 

////

Case 3:06-cv-01260-L-JMA Document 29 Filed 09/06/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\06-1260-sac.wpd 3 06cv1260

It is clear to the Court that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint suffers from the same

deficiencies previously addressed by this Court, as well as being duplicative of a number of

previous complaints brought by Plaintiff.

A. Rule 8

First, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint contains seventy two (72) pages of

typewritten, single spaced allegations. Many of the allegations consist of events such as Plaintiff

being woken early in the morning to be taken to a medical appointment, see FAC at 16,

Defendants “yelling” at Plaintiff, id. at 17, a Defendant removing soap and a pen from Plaintiff’s

cell after a search, id. at 19, and Plaintiff’s incoming mail being held for a week. Id. at 41. 

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint fails to comply with

FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a), which provides that a complaint “shall contain (1) a short and plain

statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends . . . (2) a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for

judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). Rule 8 is designed to provide

defendants with fair notice of the claims against them and the grounds on which those claims

rest. McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 

B. Duplicative Claims

A court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the

federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United

States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir.

1992). The Court takes notice of a variety of other actions filed by Plaintiff in which he has

alleged the same factual allegations but then files a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal” pursuant

to FED.R.CIV.P. 41(a)(1). Specifically, the Court takes judicial notice of Martinez v. Dep’t of

Homeland Security, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 04cv1377 JM (JMA); Martinez v. Dep’t of

Homeland Security, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 04cv1795 LAB (JMA); and Martinez v.

Corrections Corp. of America, 04cv2086 J (AJB). Each of these cases contains the same

allegations that are contained in the case currently before the Court. While Plaintiff filed a

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in each of these actions, these dismissals operate as an

Case 3:06-cv-01260-L-JMA Document 29 Filed 09/06/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\06-1260-sac.wpd 4 06cv1260

adjudication on the merits because they involve the same claims. See FED.R.CIV.P. 41(a)(1).

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint in this action as

frivolous because it “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United

States, 700 F.3d 1103, 1105 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1995). 

C. Federal Torts Claim Act

As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, the FTCA provides, in part, 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.” See Jan. 8, 2007

Order at 4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)).

Because Plaintiff had previously based his entire action on alleged violations of

constitutional law by employees of the Correctional Corporation of America rather than a

violation of a tort under the laws of the State of California, the Court dismissed this action. Id.

at 4 (citing FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 477-78 (1994) (holding that to state a claim under the

FTCA, a plaintiff must allege a state law tort claim, not a deprivation of a federal constitutional

right.)) Here, Plaintiff continues to claims that he was deprived of his “1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and

14th amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution.” SAC at 5. In fact, throughout Plaintiff’s

seventy two page Second Amended Complaint he consistently alleges that his claims are based

on the violation of his constitutional rights. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state

an FTCA claim.

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for failing to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

////

////

////

Case 3:06-cv-01260-L-JMA Document 29 Filed 09/06/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\06-1260-sac.wpd 5 06cv1260

Because it does not appear “at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect(s)” of

his pleading, further leave to amend is DENIED as futile. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,

80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial of a leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion where

further amendment would be futile).

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01260-L-JMA Document 29 Filed 09/06/07 Page 5 of 5