Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02207/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02207-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

14cv2207-LAB-BGS

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

Diego Rivera-Vazquez, Reg. No. 37781-

298,

Plaintiff,

v.

Unknown United States Customs & 

Border Patrol Agents,

Defendant.

Case No.: 14cv2207-LAB-BGS

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT TO ADD NEW PARTY

I. BACKGROUND

On September 16, 2014, Diego Rivera-Vazquez (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner 

proceeding with the assistance of counsel, filed a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.C.

388 (1971). On December 10, 2014, pursuant to certain provisions of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act, the Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint. See 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 

2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on January 12, 2015 re-alleging the 

Bivens claims, and adding claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) (28 

Case 3:14-cv-02207-LAB-BGS Document 11 Filed 03/21/16 Page 1 of 4
2

14cv2207-LAB-BGS

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

U.S.C.A. 1346, 1671 et seq. (ECF No. 4.) On January 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed an ex 

parte motion for leave to amend his complaint to add the United States as a party to his

claims under the Federal Torts Claims Act. (ECF No. 10.)

II. RELEVANT LAW

Ordinarily, courts do not consider the validity of a proposed amended pleading in 

deciding whether to grant leave to amend. SAES Getters S.p.A. v. Aeronex, Inc., 219 

F.Supp.2d 1081, 1086 (S.D. Cal. 2002) (citing text); Netbula, LLC v. Distinct Corp., 212 

FRD 534, 549 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (citing text). However, leave to amend may be denied if 

the proposed amendment is futile or would be subject to dismissal. Carrico v. City & 

County of San Francisco, 656 F3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Under the FTCA, “[a]n action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the 

United States . . . unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the 

appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in 

writing and sent by certified or registered mail.” 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The failure of an 

agency to make a final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed is deemed 

a final denial of the claim. Id. In other words, an FTCA claim may not be brought until 

the plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 

106, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993). 

Courts strictly construe this requirement because “[s]overeign immunity is an 

important limitation on the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts. The United 

States, as sovereign, can only be sued to the extent it has waived its sovereign immunity.” 

Vacek v. United States Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1250–51 (9th Cir.2006). “[Courts] 

have repeatedly held that the exhaustion requirement [of the FTCA] is jurisdictional in 

nature and must be interpreted strictly . . . Any such waiver must be strictly construed in 

favor of the United States.” Id. The exhaustion requirement must be affirmatively 

alleged in the complaint. Klimas v. Dep’t of Treasury, 122 F. App’x 355, 356 (9th Cir. 

2005) citing Gillispie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 640 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Where a plaintiff has prematurely initiated an FTCA claim before exhausting 

Case 3:14-cv-02207-LAB-BGS Document 11 Filed 03/21/16 Page 2 of 4
3

14cv2207-LAB-BGS

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

administrative remedies, courts must dismiss the FTCA claim. Jerves v. United States, 

966 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1992). A premature complaint cannot be cured by presenting 

an FTCA administrative claim to the agency after suit has been filed. McNeil, 508 U.S. 

at 110–13. Instead, plaintiffs must initiate a new action for the FTCA claim after 

exhaustion. See Duplan v. Harper, 188 F.3d 1195, 1199 (10th Cir. 1999) (amended 

complaint filed after exhaustion cannot cure a prematurely filed original complaint).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint seeks to add the United States as a party to 

his claims under the FTCA, but does not allege that he satisfied the FTCA’s exhaustion

requirement. Because the exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite, any 

claims against the United States would be subject to dismissal. Jerves, 966 F.2d at 519. 

Therefore, because amending the complaint would be futile, the Court RECOMMENDS

Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to amend the pleading to add the United States as a party be 

DENIED. 

IV. CONCLUSION

This report and recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted 

to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provision of 28 

U.S.C. section 636(b)(1). For the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that 

Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to amend the pleading to add the United States as a party be 

DENIED. 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than April 4, 2016 any party to this action may file 

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should 

be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with 

the Court and served on all parties no later than April 18, 2016. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those 

///

///

Case 3:14-cv-02207-LAB-BGS Document 11 Filed 03/21/16 Page 3 of 4
4

14cv2207-LAB-BGS

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

objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 

Cir. 1998).

Dated: March 21, 2016

Case 3:14-cv-02207-LAB-BGS Document 11 Filed 03/21/16 Page 4 of 4