Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05288/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05288-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Eugene Cavness
Plaintiff
United States
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD EUGENE CAVNESS, P38865, 

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

UNITED STATES, et al.,

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 16-5288 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison (SQSP), has filed a pro se

complaint for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents,

403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that a recent copy of his birth certificate, which

lists the “color or race” of his mother and father as “Negro,” shows that the

United States has “denationalized” and deprived him of his “proper person and

birthright” in violation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff also seeks damages

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

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable

Case 3:16-cv-05288-CRB Document 11 Filed 11/18/16 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 2

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

B. Legal Claims 

The Supreme Court recognized in Bivens that a private right of action may

be implied from the Constitution itself for allegations of constitutional violations

made against federal employees or their agents. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 392-97. 

But absent a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Bivens remedy exists solely

against individual federal officials, not against the United States. See Kreines v.

United States, 33 F.3d 1105, 1109 (9th Cir. 1994); Thomas-Lazear v. FBI, 851

F.2d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 1988). Because the United States has not waived its

sovereign immunity from a “denationalization” claim such as plaintiff’s, it cannot

be sued for damages on such a claim under Bivens. See id.

Plaintiff’s naming of President Obama as an additional defendant does not

compel a different conclusion. Because the President did not have any personal

involvement in the “denationalization” plaintiff claims, plaintiff cannot maintain

such a Bivens claim for damages against the President in his individual capacity. 

See Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 355 (9th Cir. 1988) (Bivens action

may be maintained against a federal employee “in his or her individual capacity

only, and not in his or her official capacity”).

Plaintiff’s attempt to secure damages under FTCA also is of no avail. 

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

Case 3:16-cv-05288-CRB Document 11 Filed 11/18/16 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 3

any employee” of the federal government while acting within the scope of his

office or employment. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The United States is only liable “if

a private person[] would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of

the place where the act or omission occurred.” Id. Put simply, the United States

waives sovereign immunity only under circumstances where local law would

make a private person liable in tort. United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43, 44

(2005). Plaintiff’s “denationalization” claim does not fall within FTCA’s scope

because it does not involve actions or omissions that would make a private

person liable in tort. See id. Moreover, the claim arises from actions or

omissions of the framers of the Constitution that occurred well before FTCA’s

operative date of January 1, 1945. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1107

(9th Cir. 1995) (claims arising out of fact of slavery occurred prior to 1945 and

are outside scope of FTCA).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED under the

authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. 

The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order and close the

file.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 11/18/2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-05288-CRB Document 11 Filed 11/18/16 Page 3 of 3