Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01260/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01260-1/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

1

 A review of the docket indicates that Plaintiff may have had a change of address. This concern

was set forth in the Court’s Order dated March 28, 2007. Plaintiff is once again admonished that it is

his obligation to file with the Clerk of the Court and serve on opposing counsel any and all notices of

change address.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR MARTINEZ,

# A30-700-636,

Civil No. 06-CV-1260 L (JMA) 

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING FIRST

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 Center1

, 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

Case 3:06-cv-01260-L-JMA Document 20 Filed 04/23/07 Page 1 of 3
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-fac.wpd 2 06cv1260

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

rights.

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. 

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

In the Court’s previous Order, Plaintiff was told that he must address the deficiencies of

pleading in his Amended Complaint and the Amended Complaint “must be complete in itself”

without reference to his original Complaint. See Jan. 8, 2007 Order at 5. In other words,

Plaintiff was to file an Amended Complaint that corrected the problems identified but he was

also to reallege the facts that he believed form the basis of his original Complaint. See S.D. CAL.

CIV LR 15.1. The First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff does not contain any factual

allegations that form the basis of this action. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s

First Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

However, the Court will permit Plaintiff the opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint

which not only address the problems with Plaintiff’s original Complaint as identified by the

Court in its January 8, 2007 Order but also sets forth the relevant factual allegations.

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 17] is DISMISSED without

prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.

Case 3:06-cv-01260-L-JMA Document 20 Filed 04/23/07 Page 2 of 3
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-fac.wpd 3 06cv1260

§ 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff is granted sixty (60) days from the date this Order is filed in which to file

an amended complaint which addresses each deficiency of pleading noted above. Plaintiff’s

Second Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to the superseded

pleading. See S. D. CA. CIV. L R. 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in

the Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a Form Amended Complaint to Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 23, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01260-L-JMA Document 20 Filed 04/23/07 Page 3 of 3