Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02787/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02787-0/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 

....­ .I

......... -.-.. 

\4 y 5 pj- 3:04 

O\ST?I"T COUtlT ~\ lr \(, lJl<;''''I~ G,"C.',llfOf\ HU, . ·.~~~ ~iL )11\ 'OJ 

~ D(PUT Y 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JESUS NARANJO FERNANDEZ, Civil No. 13cv2787 WQH (REB) 

Detainee No. A200156060, 

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS vs. (ECF Doc. No.2) 

AND 

UNITED STATES, et al., 

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

FOR FAILING TO STATE A 

Defendants. CLAIM PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

Jesus Naranjo Fernandez ("Plaintiff'), currently detained at the San Diego 

Correctional Facility located in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed 

a civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens v. Six Unknown Names Agents 0/ 

the Federal Bureau o/Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Administrative Procedure Act 

("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701, and the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1346(b)(1). 

Plaintiff claims his due process rights were violated by the United States, the U.S. 

Attorney General, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, a U.S. 

Immigrations and Customs Office Field Officer, the Corrections Corporation ofAmerica 

IlEveryonel_EFrLE-PROSEIWQH\13cv2787-gr1 IFP & dsm.wpd -1- 13cv2787 WQH (RBB) 

Case 3:13-cv-02787-WQH-RBB Document 3 Filed 05/05/14 Page 1 of 6
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 

("CCA") and CCA's Warden when they denied him a salary for work he performed as 

barber while detained at CCA from September 26, 2013, through October 22, 2013. See 

Compi. at 7-8. 

Plaintiffhas not prepaid the filing fee required to commence a civil action; instead, 

he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a) (ECF Doc. No.2). 

I. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court ofthe 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus must pay a filing fee of 

$400. 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiffs failure to 

prepay the entire fee only ifthe plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, ·169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

However, "[u]nlike other indigent litigants, prisoners proceeding IFP must pay the full 

amount offiling 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 ofcriminal 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 he is an immigration detainee, and not a "prisoner" as 

I In addition to the $350 statutory fee, all parties filing civil actions on or after Ma,Y ], 

2013, must pay an additional administrative fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. ~ 1914(a) (JudIcial 

Conference Schedule ofF ees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule) (eff. May r, 2013). However, 

the additional $50 administrative fee is waived if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP. 

Id. 

I:lEveryo'ne\.EFILE-PROSEIWQH\l3cv2181-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -2- I3cv2787 WQH (RBB) 

Case 3:13-cv-02787-WQH-RBB Document 3 Filed 05/05/14 Page 2 of 6
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 

defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), the filing fee provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) do not 

apply to him. See Compl. at 2. 

Accordingly, the Court has reviewed Plaintiffs affidavit of assets and finds it is 

sufficient to show that he is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain 

this action. Therefore, Plaintiffs Motion to ProceedIFPpursuantto28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

(ECF Doc. No.2) is GRANTED. 

a 

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 bane) ("[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.") 

First, to the extent Plaintiff brings his action against the Corrections Corporation 

of America ("CCA"), a private corporation that contracts with the federal government 

to house alien detainees awaiting deportation, and Warden Lawrence, a CCA employee, 

under the APA, see Compl. at 1,3,4; neither ofthese Defendants are an agency ofthe 

Federal Government nor are they employees ofthe Federal Government. Therefore, any 

decisions made by the CCA or its employees are not reviewable under the AP A. See 

Newton-Nations v. Betlach, 660 F.3d 370, 378 (9th Cir. 2011) ("The Administrative 

Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, provides for judicial review of federal 

agencies' actions."); Spokane County Legal Services, Inc. v. Legal Services Corp., 614 

F .2d 662, 669 (1980) (finding decisions made by non-profit legal services provider were 

not subject to AP A because it was "not an agency ofthe federal government."). 

III 

IlEveryonel_EFILE.PROSEIWQH\l3cv2181.grt IFP & dsm.wpd -3- I3cv2787 WQH (RBB) 

Case 3:13-cv-02787-WQH-RBB Document 3 Filed 05/05/14 Page 3 of 6
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 

Second, Plaintiff seeks to bring a claim against the United States pursuant to the 

FTCA, which waives sovereign immunity for certain torts committed by federal 

employees. FDICv. Meyer, 510U.S. 471,475 (1994). TheFTCAprovidesthatdistrict 

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 ofany employee" ofthe federal government while 

acting within the scope ofhis office or employment. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b); Meyer, 510 

U.S. at 475. However, Plaintiffs Complaint fails to allege, among other things 

necessary to state a valid claim under the FTCA, that he exhausted his administrative 

remedies under the FTCA prior to filing suit. See 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. "); 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."). Based on this fundamental jurisdictional 

defect, Plaintiff s FTCA claims must be dismissed for failing to state a claim pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 19l5(e)(2). See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. 

Third, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold the CCA liable for alleged civil rights 

violations pursuant to Bivens, 403 U.S. at 388, his claims also fail. Bivens established 

that "compensable injury to a constitutionally protected interest [by federal officials 

alleged to have acted under color of federal law] could be vindicated by a suit for 

damages invoking the general federal questionjurisdiction ofthe federal courts [pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331]." Butzv. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 486 (1978). 

Bivens provides that "federal courts have the inherent authority to award damages 

against federal officials to compensate plaintiffs for violations of their constitutional 

rights." Western Center for Journalism v. Cederquist, 235 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 

2000). However, a Bivens action may only be brought against the responsible federal 

/ / / 

[:lEyeryone\~EFILE-rROSE\WQH\13cv2787-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -4­ 13cv2787 WQH (RBB) 

Case 3:13-cv-02787-WQH-RBB Document 3 Filed 05/05/14 Page 4 of 6
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

official in his or her individual capacity. Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 355 

(9th Cir. 1988). 

Bivens does not provide a remedy for alleged wrongs committed by a private 

entity alleged to have denied Plaintiff s constitutional rights under color offederal law. 

Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 69 (2001) ('" [T]he purpose of 

Bivens is to deter the officer,' not the agency.") (quoting Meyer, 510 U.S. at 485); 

Malesko, 534 U.S. at 66 n.2 (holding that Meyer "forecloses the extension ofBivens to 

private entities."). Accordingly, Plaintiffs claims against the CCA must also be 

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915( e )(2). Lopez, 203 F 3d at 1127. 

lOInaddition, the Supreme Court recently held that a prisoner cannot bring a Bivens 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

action against Warden Lawrence, an employee ofthe CCA, in federal court either. See 

Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S.Ct. 617, 626 (2012). 

In Minneci, the Supreme Court held that: 

where a federal prisoner seeks damages from privately employed personnel working at a privately operated federal prison, where the conauct allegedly 

amounts to a violation ofthe Eighth Amendment, and where that conduct 

is a kind that typically falls within the scope of traditional state tort law 

(such as the conduct Involving improper medical care at issue here), the 

pr:isoner must ~eek a remedy under state tort law. We cannot imply a 

Blvens remedy In such a case. 

Id. 

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff does name U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Janet 

Napolitano, the former Secretary ofthe Department of Homeland Security, and Robin 

Baker, the Director of the ICE Field Office in San Diego-all federal actors, and all 

alleged to be "responsible" for the general implementation and enforcement of 

immigration laws-as Defendants, and he seeks damages against them under Bivens, he 

nevertheless has failed to allege any plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This is primarily because "vicarious liability is inapplicable 

to Bivens ... suits," id. at 676, and secondarily because Plaintiff has failed to allege that 

any ofthem "through [their] own individual actions, ... violated the Constitution." Id.; 

cf Coakleyv. Murphy, 884F.2d 1218, 1220-1221 (9thCir.1989)(prisonerhasnoliberty 

1:IEveryonel_EFlLE-PROSEIWQH\13cv2787-grt IFP & dsm,wpd -5- I3cv2787 WQH (RBB) 

Case 3:13-cv-02787-WQH-RBB Document 3 Filed 05/05/14 Page 5 of 6
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 

or property interest to continue in a work release program); see also Flittie v. Solem, 827 

F.2d 276, 279 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) ("Inmates have no constitutional right to be 

assigned to a particular job."); Ingram v. Papalia, 804 F.2d 595, 596 (lOth Cir. 1986) 

(per curiam) ("The Constitution does not create a property or liberty interest in prison 

employment."). 

III. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF 

Doc. No.2) is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 

2. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state 

a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). However, Plaintiff is GRANTED forty 

five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed in which to file a First Amended 

Complaint which cures the deficiencies ofpleading noted above. Plaintiffs Amended 

Complaint must be complete in itselfwithout reference to the superseded pleading. See 

S.D. CAL. ClvLR 15.1. Defendants not named and any claim not re-alleged in the 

Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F .2d 565, 567 

(9th Cir. 1987). 

~ ~ 

DATED: --I-.41-=12~/;Y~

I:lEveryonel_EFILE-PROSEIWQH\13cv2787-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -6­ 13cv2787 WQH (RBB) 

Case 3:13-cv-02787-WQH-RBB Document 3 Filed 05/05/14 Page 6 of 6