Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00201/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00201-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of the Correction of Military Records
Defendant
Danny Caesar
Plaintiff
United States Army
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY CAESAR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES ARMY, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:16-cv-00201-LJO-BAM 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Findings and Recommendations

Plaintiff Danny Caesar (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, initiated this civil action on February 12, 2016. Plaintiff’s complaint is currently 

before the Court for screening. 

Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

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 

Case 1:16-cv-00201-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any 

doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-1123 (9th Cir. 2012), 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 

F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not 

sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff names the Unites States Army and Board of the Correction of Military Records 

as defendants. In relevant part, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

In December 1976 I was injured due to approx.. 17 hours of extreme exposure 

(cold weather) in Grafenfeld, Germany, because of a U.S. Army Training 

Exercise. Upon discharge, in March 1979, the Army failed to properly inform me 

of my medical condition, although they were aware of it. I asked the Army 

Review Board (case #AR 20140000050) to correct this mistake, and they denied 

me. The psychotic chasm that resulted caused me to become psychotic, not able 

to maintain a job, and eventually going back and forth to prison for the majority 

of my life; where I eventually learned of my psychosis. The Army Review Board 

failed to correct the mistake. 

Doc. 1 at 5.

As relief, Plaintiff requests the following:

I ask for a total of $20,000,000.00 for both actual and punitive damages for my 

entire life being ruined, both personally and legally; and left living with frostbite 

residuals pains (1/2 way excruciatiating [sic]), as a way of life – in part, due to the 

Allowance of 3rd World medical practice, here in California Department of 

Case 1:16-cv-00201-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 04/22/16 Page 2 of 4
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

Corrections. 

Doc. 1 at 6. 

Discussion

Based on the allegations in his complaint, Plaintiff seeks to recover monetary damages 

for frostbite he suffered during Army Training Exercises. Plaintiff suggests that the Army was 

negligent in its diagnosis and treatment of his condition. The Court construes Plaintiff’s claim

against the United States Army and Board of the Correction of Military Records as arising under 

the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (liability of United States for tort 

claims). However, pursuant to the Feres doctrine, the government is not liable under the FTCA 

for injuries to servicemen “where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident 

to service.” Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950). As the injuries Plaintiff alleges in 

his complaint arose in the course of activity incident to military service, i.e., during Army 

training exercises prior to his discharge, his claim is barred. Feres, 340 U.S. at 146; see also 

Jackson v. United States, 110 F.3d 1484, 1489 (9th Cir. 1997) (Feres bars suits for medical 

malpractice even when treatment not for military-related injuries). 

Conclusion and Recommendations

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows:

1. This action be dismissed as barred under the Feres doctrine; and

2. All pending motions, including Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 

(Doc. 4) be terminated.

 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

Case 1:16-cv-00201-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 04/22/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

magistrate’s factual findings” 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: April 22, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00201-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 04/22/16 Page 4 of 4