Nuwintore v. United States of America et al
Filing
66
ORDER ADOPTING 47 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and GRANTING 30 Government's Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/23/2014. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RICHARD NUWINTORE,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING
CORPORATION,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:13-cv-00967 - AWI - JLT
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING THE MOTION
TO DISMISS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
(Docs. 30, 47)
17
18
Defendant United States of America (“the Government”) seeks dismissal of claims brought by
19
Plaintiff Richard Nuwintore (“Plaintiff”) against the Government. (Doc. 30.) On March 18, 2014, the
20
Magistrate Judge found the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because no cause of action under the
21
Federal Tort Claims Act exists under 18 U.S.C. § 4042. In addition, the Magistrate Judge determined
22
the independent contractor exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act barred Plaintiff’s claims for
23
negligence because the Government delegated the duties of inmate orientation, health services, and
24
maintenance—among other responsibilities—to Management & Training Corporation (“MTC”), and
25
retention of some control over Taft Correctional Institution did not rise to the level of controlling or
26
supervising the day-to-day operations. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiff’s
27
claims against the Government be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
28
Procedure. (Doc. 47.)
1
1
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations on
2
March 27, 2014 (Doc. 48). Plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge erred in finding the Court lacks
3
subject matter jurisdiction, arguing there is a private cause of action under 18 U.S.C § 4042, and the
4
independent contractor exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act does not bar his claims against the
5
United States. (Id. at 2-8.) Further, Plaintiff asserts that “[u]nder California law, the direct allegations
6
against the USA in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint establish liability that is separate and distinct
7
from that of any independent contractor theory.” (Id. at 8.)
8
9
Significantly, the Government made a factual challenge against Plaintiff’s claims under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1). With such a challenge, “[n]o presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff’s
10
allegations.” Thornhill Pub. Co. v. General Tel. & Elec. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 734 (1979); see also Safe
11
Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2004) (“in a factual attack, the challenger
12
disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction”).
13
Given the nature of a factual attack, the Court has the authority to “review any evidence, such as
14
affidavits and testimony” presented by the parties. McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th
15
Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1052 (1989).
16
Although Plaintiff argues that he alleged “the USA negligently or wrongfully failed to provide
17
suitable quarters and provide for the protection, safekeeping, care, and subsistence of Plaintiff by
18
failing to warn Plaintiff about the dangers and risks associated with Valley Fever and failing to make
19
structural changes to Taft CI … and by being negligent in its study, formulation, and implementation of
20
a response to the Valley Fever epidemic at Taft CI” (Doc. 48 at 9), the allegations are insufficient. As
21
the Magistrate Judge found, the Government delegated responsibilities “related to health services and
22
management” of Taft Correctional Institution to MTC. (See Doc. 47 at 9.) Such responsibilities
23
included maintenance, sanitation, health services, health education, and inmate orientation. (Id. at 9-11,
24
citing Straus Decl. ¶¶ 18, 38, 41-43; Harvey Decl. ¶¶ 1, 27-29, 37.) Consequently, the Government
25
retained little control over the facility, and MTC acted as an independent contractor. This conclusions
26
is consistent with this Court’s prior determination in Edison v. USA, Case No. 1:12-cv-2026-AWI-JLT,
27
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128503 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2013). Finally, as the Magistrate Judge determined,
28
“standing alone, no cause of action under the FTCA exists under § 4042.” (Doc. 47 at 7, citing United
2
1
2
3
4
Scottish Ins. Co. v. U.S., 614 F.2d 188, 197 (1979)).
Having carefully reviewed the record, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are
supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
The Findings and Recommendations filed March 18, 2014 (Doc. 47) are
ADOPTED IN FULL; and
5
6
2.
The Government’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 30) is GRANTED; and
7
3.
Plaintiff’s First and Third Causes of Action are DISMISSED.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
Dated: May 23, 2014
11
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?