Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05771/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05771-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Hawkins
Plaintiff
USA
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES HAWKINS,

 

Plaintiff,

 

 v.

 

USA, et. al.,

 

Defendants.

____________________________________/

CIV F 04-5771 OWW SMS P 

 

ORDER DENYING RENEWED REQUEST

FOR STAY OF CASE (Doc. 48 )

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 40)

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE

WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS 

Charles Hawkins (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil action. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 27, 2004. On July 16, 2004, Plaintiff filed a pleading

requesting that the Court correct the record to reflect that Plaintiff had filed an action pursuant to the

Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and not Bivens. Thus, on July 28, 2004, the Court issued an

Order correcting the record and dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff was

informed that under the FTCA, the only proper Defendant was the United States. 

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on August 13, 2004. Based on the Amended

Complaint the Court issued an Order on October 18, 2004, finding service of the Complaint proper

and directed the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendant USA. The United States filed an Answer to the

First Amended Complaint on March 23, 2005. The Court then issued a Scheduling Order opening

discovery and setting forth various dispositive motion deadlines. Plaintiff moved to amend the

Case 1:04-cv-05771-GMS Document 51 Filed 10/24/06 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

Complaint for the second time on July 29, 2005, indicating that he wished to include a number of

parties he felt were responsible for his medical condition. Defendants filed a Statement of NonOpposition to the Motion to Amend and thus, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request. 

The Second Amended Complaint was filed on December 23, 2005. Defendants filed an

Answer on January 11, 2006. Plaintiff moved to stay the case on August 1, 2006, citing a pending

“brain operation” as the reason for the stay. Defendant’s filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to the

Motion on August 4, 2006. On August 23, 2006, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for a stay

indicating that Plaintiff’s request based on speculation and he cited no end to the stay. 

Plaintiff renewed his Motion on October 4, 2006, stating that he is in the hospital and thus,

requests a stay of 90 days. Defendants filed a Statement of Non-Opposition on October 17, 2006.

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

As stated in this Court’s Order of July 24, 2004, it 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). “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). 

Case 1:04-cv-05771-GMS Document 51 Filed 10/24/06 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

The Federal Tort Claims act is limited to suits against the U.S. for torts committed by their employees. The 1

allegations in the Second Amended Complaint do not indicate that any of the named businesses or individuals were federal

employees. Similarly, they are not “state actors” such that Plaintiff could maintain a civil rights action under Section 1983.

 Nor could Plaintiff maintain an action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

403 U.S. 388 (1971), for such lawsuits can be maintained against federal officials only and for constitutional deprivations

that occur under color of federal law. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to sue these businesses or their employees for monetary

damages under a negligence or malpractice theory, he must pursue such an action in the proper state court.

In this case, although Plaintiff was previously informed that the United States is the only

proper Defendant in a Federal Tort Claims Act action, he nevertheless included several individuals

and businesses in the caption of his Second Amended Complaint. See Lance v. United States, 70

F.3d 1093, 1095 (9 Cir. 1995) citing Woods v. United States, 720 F.2d 1451, 1452 n.1 (9 Cir. th th

1983). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations against the University of Texas Medical Branch, David

Craig Palmieri, P.A., Antonio Villasan, M.D., Melinda Ross, R.N., St. Johns Regional Health

Center, Michael Luzecky, M.D., Mike Coburn, M.D., Craig L. Boswell, M.D., Merced MRI & CT

Scanning Medical Group and Stephen K. Hansen fail as a matter of law. The Court will again

dismiss the Complaint and provide Plaintiff with the final opportunity to amend his Complaint and

omit all Defendants except for the United States. This does not mean that Plaintiff cannot make

reference to these individuals in his statement of facts, he just cannot include them as Defendants in

the Caption, seek damages from these individuals as Defendants or indicate in the Amended

Complaint that they are Defendants. As stated above, the only proper Defendant in a FTCA action is

the United States.1

Even had Plaintiff properly named solely the United States, the facts alleged in the Second

Amended Complaint do not sufficiently state a cognizable claim for relief. 

The Federal Tort Claims Act is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. The Act permits the

United States to be sued for the negligence of its employees. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The government

may also be sued for the actions of a government contractor and its employees if the government has

the authority “to control the detailed physical performance of the contractor” and supervise its “dayto-day operations.” United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814-15, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 1976, 48 L.Ed.2d

390 (1976) (quoting Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521, 528, 93 S.Ct. 2215, 2219, 37 L.Ed.2d 121

(1973). 

Case 1:04-cv-05771-GMS Document 51 Filed 10/24/06 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

Plaintiff alleges no facts in his Second Amended Complaint demonstrating that the Federal

Bureau of Prisons had any authority over the daily operations of the University of Texas Medical

Branch, the St. Johns Regional Health Center or the Merced MRI & CT Scanning Medical Group or

their employees. As such, Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the FTCA.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint does not state a claim upon

which relief can be granted under the FTCA. The Court will provide Plaintiff with time to file an

Third Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified above should he wish to do so. 

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 (9 Cir. 1967). Once an th

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 “THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the appropriate case number, and be an

original signed under penalty of perjury. 

Finally, Plaintiff’s request to stay the case is DENIED. As stated previously, the Court

cannot stay this case indefinitely. Although Plaintiff asks for only a ninety day stay, the Court has

screened the Complaint and has determined that the pleadings do not state a cognizable claims for

relief. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for a stay is DENIED. The Court will grant Plaintiff more than the

standard amount of time allotted for the filing of an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is forewarned,

however, that given the state of the case and the amount of time the case has been pending, the Court

cannot delay resolution of this case further. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Renewed Request to Stay the Case is DENIED;

2. The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. WITHIN

NINETY (90) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

a. File a THIRD Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the

Court in this Order, or

Case 1:04-cv-05771-GMS Document 51 Filed 10/24/06 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

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

Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary dismiss the

case. See, Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1).

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: October 23, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05771-GMS Document 51 Filed 10/24/06 Page 5 of 5