Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00545/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00545-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN CARLOS DE LA CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00545-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSING CERTAIN 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FROM THIS 

ACTION

(ECF No. 1)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY 

DAYS

Plaintiff Juan Carlos De La Cruz is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal 

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights 

by federal actors. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed April 9, 2015.

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 1:15-cv-00545-AWI-SAB Document 7 Filed 06/24/15 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

1915(e)(2)(B). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each 

named defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-

677; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969.

II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff is housed at the Taft Correctional Institution which is managed by Management 

and Training Corporation (“MTC”) under a contract with the Bureau of Prisons. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 

18, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff suffers from an enlarged prostrate and has been proscribed pain 

medication and a catheter. (Id. at ¶ 18.) Plaintiff claims that his prostrate problem has worsened 

due to the negligent treatment he has received while incarcerated at MTC. (Id. at ¶ 1.) Plaintiff 

brings this action alleging deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment and state 

law claims seeking monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief against the United 

States of America, Federal Bureau of Prisons, MTC and three of MTC‟s employees, Michael L. 

Benov, Dale Patrick, and Lauri Watts.

Case 1:15-cv-00545-AWI-SAB Document 7 Filed 06/24/15 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

A. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claims Against Defendants MTC and its 

Employees 

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants MTC, Benov, Patrick, and Watts for 

deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In Bivens the Supreme Court 

recognized that in limited circumstances there is a claim for damages against federal officers 

who abuse their constitutional authority. 403 U.S. at 397. However, the Supreme Court has held 

that the implied right of action recognized in Bivens does not extend to allow recovery against a 

private corporation operating under contract with the Bureau of Prisons. Correctional Services 

Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 63 (2001). Recently, in a case where a prisoner was alleging 

inadequate medical care, the Supreme Court held that Bivens did not extend to imply the 

existence of an Eighth Amendment based damages action against employees of a privately 

operated federal prison. Minneci v. Pollard, 123 S.Ct. 617, 620, 626 (2012). Accordingly, 

Plaintiff cannot state a claim under the Eighth Amendment against MTC or any of its employees

based upon the medical care he received while housed at Taft Correctional Institution. 

Courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the 

opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is 

futile.” Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). In this case, it would be futile to allow Plaintiff to amend his 

complaint to state an Eighth Amendment claim against these defendants. The Court 

recommends that Plaintiff‟s federal claims against Defendants MTC, Benov, Patrick, and Watts 

be dismissed without leave to amend.

B. Plaintiff’s Claims Against the United States and the Bureau of Prisons

Plaintiff also brings Eighth Amendment and state law claims in this action against the 

United States of America and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

1. Deliberate Indifference Under the Eighth Amendment

Plaintiff brings his Eighth Amendment claims against the United States of America and 

the Bureau of Prisons. However, the United States and its agencies are immune from suit absent 

a waiver of sovereign immunity. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476 (1994). “Before we may 

Case 1:15-cv-00545-AWI-SAB Document 7 Filed 06/24/15 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

exercise jurisdiction over any suit against the government, we must have „a clear statement from 

the United States waiving sovereign immunity, together with a claim falling within the terms of 

the waiver.‟ ” Jachetta v. United States, 653 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). 

The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity 

for certain torts committed by government employees. Delta Savings Bank v. United States, 265

F.3d 1017, 1024 (9th Cir. 2001). This waiver includes “tort claims arising out of negligent 

conduct of government employees acting within the scope of their employment,” Terbush v. 

United States, 516 F.3d 1125, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 2008), if the United States, as a private person, 

would be liable to the plaintiff under California tort law, United States v. Olson, 126 S. Ct. 510, 

511 (2005); Delta Savings Bank, 265 F.3d at 1025. However, the FCTA did not waive sovereign 

immunity as to any constitutional claims against the United States. Jachetta, 653 F.3d at 908 

(“We find no evidence in either statute that Congress intended to subject federal agencies to § 

1983 and § 1985 liability.”); see also Martinez v. United States, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1058 

(C.D. Cal. 2010) (“the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for suits brought 

under the civil rights statutes, and such claims are barred by sovereign immunity”). Plaintiff 

cannot state a claim against the United States or the Bureau of Prisons under section 1983. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s Eighth Amendment claims should be dismissed without leave to amend

because amendment would be futile in this instance.

2. State Law Claims

Plaintiff brings this action against the Bureau of Prisons. Pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure Rule 17(a), “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in 

interest.” Under the FTCA the only proper party defendant is the United States. Kennedy v. 

United States Postal Office, 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). A claim against a 

federal agency is not a claim against the United States. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot state a 

claim under the Federal Tort Claim Act against the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Since it would be 

futile to allow Plaintiff to amend his claims against the Bureau of Prisons, the Court recommends 

that the claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons be dismissed for failure to state a claim

without leave to amend.

Case 1:15-cv-00545-AWI-SAB Document 7 Filed 06/24/15 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

In addition, a suit may not be instituted against the United States under the FTCA unless 

the claim is first presented to the appropriate federal agency and the claim is finally denied, or 

six months have passed without a final resolution having been made.1 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). 

Where the claim requirement is not met the Court must dismiss the claim for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. Goodman v. United States, 298 F.3d 1048, 1054, 1055 (2002). Plaintiff 

alleges he met this requirement by filing a claim for administrative settlement with United States 

Bureau of Prisons on October 3, 2014 to the Bureau of Prisons which was denied on October 9, 

2014. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 4.) 

The Federal Tort Claim Act provides that the United States is liable 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 Government while acting within the scope of his office or 

employment.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(b)(1). The definition of federal agencies that applies to 

section 1346 specifically excludes contractors with the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2671. 

Employees of the Government are “officers or employees of any federal agency, members of the 

military or naval forces of the United States, members of the National Guard while engaged in 

training or duty under section 115, 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32, and persons acting on 

behalf of a federal agency in an official capacity, temporarily or permanently in the service of the 

United States, whether with or without compensation.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2671. In Logue v. United 

States, 412 U.S. 1973, the Supreme Court considered whether the Federal Tort Claims Act 

provided liability for torts of employees of a county jail under contract to house federal inmates. 

The Supreme Court held that section 1346 and 2671 read together included an exemption for 

liability for injury caused by employees of a contractor. Id. at 528. 

Although Logue recognized that there may be situations where the government had 

sufficient control over the operations of the private contractor such that the employees could be 

 

1A plaintiff‟s tort claim against the United States is “forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the 

appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues or unless action is begun within six months 

after the date of mailing . . . of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented. 28 U.S.C 

§ 2401(b).

Case 1:15-cv-00545-AWI-SAB Document 7 Filed 06/24/15 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

found to be acting on behalf of the government, Logue, 412 U.S. at 530, Plaintiff merely alleges 

that the United States operates and controls the Bureau of Prisons and the Bureau of Prisons 

operates under control of the United States. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 6, 7.) MTC was awarded a 

contract with the Bureau of Prisons to assume management of Taft Correctional Institution. (Id.

at ¶¶ 8, 9.) While Plaintiff contends that the Bureau of Prisons allows MTC to deny medical 

treatment, the complaint sets for no factual allegations to state a plausible claim that the Bureau 

of Prisons is directing or overseeing the activities of the employees of MTC. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim that the United States is liable for the actions of the 

employees of MTC. 

Since Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim over which this Court has 

jurisdiction, the Court does not address the viability of Plaintiff‟s state law claims. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(a).

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable federal claim against any named defendant in this 

action. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the amendment of complaints. 

Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend „shall be freely given when justice so requires.‟” 

Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). In this instance, Plaintiff should be granted the opportunity to file an 

amended complaint. 1

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed April 9, 2015, be DISMISSED for failure to state a 

claim;

2. Plaintiff‟s Eighth Amendment claims be DISMISSED without leave to amend for 

failure to state a claim;

 

1

Plaintiff is advised that he is not being provided with an opportunity to file an amended complaint at this time. 

Once the district judge issues an order addressing this findings and recommendations, Plaintiff will be provided with 

a deadline to file an amended complaint.

Case 1:15-cv-00545-AWI-SAB Document 7 Filed 06/24/15 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

7

3. Defendant Bureau of Prisons be DISMISSED from the action for failure to state a 

claim; and 

4. Plaintiff be provided with the opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure 

the deficiencies identified herein.

This findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court‟s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30) 

days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to these findings 

and recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the 

magistrate judge‟s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 

waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00545-AWI-SAB Document 7 Filed 06/24/15 Page 7 of 7