Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00489/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00489-0/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

STEVEN BERNARD BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S.A., et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06 489 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc.1) 

 Steven Bernard Brooks (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

action. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act and California Tort Law. 

A. 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 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). 

Case 1:06-cv-00489-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 05/03/06 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

2

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff has filed this action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, 

and California Tort Law and names the United States of America, the Bureau of Prisons and the

Geo Group as Defendants. The Complaint alleges that while incarcerated at Taft Correctional

Institution (“TCI”), the Bureau of Prisons and TCI implemented policy which precluded root

canals. As a result, Plaintiff, who had been informed that a root canal was necessary, was not

able to have the necessary root canal and feared that he would ultimately lose his teeth. Plaintiff

is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. 

C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Federal Tort Claims Act

The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680, waives the

sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts committed by federal employees. 

FDIC v. Meyer, 114 S.Ct. 996, 1000 (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

Case 1:06-cv-00489-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 05/03/06 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

1

Plaintiff should note that a claim under the FTCA is barred unless it is presented in writing to the

appropriate federal agency “within two years after such claim accrues.” United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 113

(1979) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)). 

3

employment. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The timely filing of an administrative claim is a jurisdictional

prerequisite to the bringing of a suit under the FTCA. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 640

(9th Cir.1980) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2675). A claim may not be filed in federal court until the

plaintiff has received a final denial of the claim from the appropriate agency. Id. 

In this case, Plaintiff has alleged no facts indicating that he exhausted his administrative

remedies prior to filing this FTCA claim. Accordingly, the claim must be DISMISSED for lack

of jurisdiction.1

The Court notes further that Plaintiff has named the Bureau of Prisons and the Geo Group

as Defendants. However, 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. United

States 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. Nor is an

agency a proper defendant under the FTCA. Craft, 157 F.3d at 706 (citing Shelton v. United

States Customs Serv., 565 F.2d 1140, 1141 (9th Cir.1977)). 

2. California Tort Claims Act 

California’s Tort Claims Act requires that a tort claim against a public entity or its

employees be presented to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board,

formerly known as the State Board of Control, no more than six months after the cause of action

accrues. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950-950.2 (West 2006). Presentation of a

written claim, and action on or rejection of the claim are conditions precedent to suit. State v.

Superior Court of Kings County (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1245, 90 P.3d 116, 124, 13

Cal.Rptr.3d 534, 543 (2004); Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477

(9th Cir. 1995). To state a tort claim against a public employee, a plaintiff must allege

compliance with the Tort Claims Act. State v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th at 1245, 90 P.3d at

124, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d at 543; Mangold, 67 F.3d at 1477; Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police

Case 1:06-cv-00489-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 05/03/06 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

4

Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988).

As in the above, Plaintiff fails to allege compliance with the California Tort Claims Act. 

Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over his claim. 

D. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief

can be granted under § 1983 against any of the Defendants. The Court will provide Plaintiff with

time to file an [ ] Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified above should he wish

to do so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Amended Complaint how the conditions complained of

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 

1980). The Amended Complaint must specifically state how each Defendant is involved. 

Further, there can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or

connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423,

U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588

F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an Amended Complaint

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an Amended

Complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967). Once an Amended Complaint is filed, the original Complaint 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. The Amended

Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the

appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

E. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form;

2. The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. WITHIN THIRTY (30) days

Case 1:06-cv-00489-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 05/03/06 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

5

from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

a. File an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court

in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an Amended

Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary dismiss

the case. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00489-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 05/03/06 Page 5 of 5