Pedroza Ochoa et al v. City of Oceanside et al

Filing 52

ORDER granting the United States' 44 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs' claims against the federal defendants are DISMISSED. If Plaintiffs think they can amend their complaint to fix the problems identified in this order and the United States' motion to dismiss, they may file an amended complaint no later than July 6, 2016. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 6/27/16. (kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CECILIA PEDROZA OCHOA, et al.,

12

CASE NO. 15cv568-LAB (NLS)

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’
MOTION TO DISMISS

vs.
13

CITY OF OCEANSIDE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

This case arises out of the death of Daniel Pedroza. Plaintiffs allege that an officer

17

with the Oceanside Police Department shot Pedroza without probable cause. Plaintiffs have

18

sued three federal defendants—U.S. Internal Affairs, the U.S. Department of Justice, and

19

the White House. The United States has moved to dismiss the claims against these three

20

defendants. (Docket no. 30.)

21

Legal Standards

22

A Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) challenges a complaint’s jurisdictional allegations. If the

23

court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss

24

the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The burden of proof on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is on the

25

party asserting jurisdiction. Sopcak v. N. Mountain Helicopter Serv., 52 F.3d 817, 818 (9th

26

Cir. 1995).

27

A Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim challenges the

28

legal sufficiency of a complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). The
-1-

15cv568

1

Court must accept all factual allegations as true and construe them in the light most

2

favorable to Plaintiffs. Cedars Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497

3

F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2007). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

4

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

5

678 (2009).

6

Jurisdiction to Sue Federal Agencies Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

7

Plaintiffs brings their first cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983

8

“impose[s] liability upon a ‘person,’ and a federal agency is not a ‘person’ within the meaning

9

of these provisions.” Jachetta v. United States, 653 F.3d 898, 908 (9th Cir. 2011). Nor is

10

the White House. Cf. Lamb v. White House Staff, 2009 WL 2526442, at *2 (D.S.C. July 22,

11

2009) (dismissing claim against “White House Staff” because “a defendant in a section 1983

12

action must qualify as a ‘person,’” and White House Staff did not). Because the federal

13

defendants are not “persons,” Plaintiffs fail to state a § 1983 claim against them.

14

Plaintiffs’ Tort Claims

15

The remainder of Plaintiffs’ claims arise under state tort law. Alleged violations of

16

state tort law by the federal government can be maintained only in an action pursuant to the

17

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). FDIC v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The

18

FTCA is the exclusive remedy for tortious conduct by the United States.”). The filing of an

19

administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency is a jurisdictional prerequisite to

20

filing an FTCA suit. Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs

21

bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction under the FTCA and must affirmatively allege

22

compliance with the FTCA’s administrative exhaustion requirement. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629

23

F.2d 637, 640 (9th Cir. 1980) (“The timely filing of an administrative claim is a jurisdictional

24

prerequisite to the bringing of a suit under the FTCA, and, as such, should be affirmatively

25

alleged in the complaint” (internal citation omitted)). Plaintiffs do not allege compliance with

26

the FTCA’s exhaustion requirement, so the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over their

27

tort claims against the federal defendants.

28

///
-2-

15cv568

1

Failure to Allege Facts to State a Claim Against Federal Defendants

2

Plaintiffs repeatedly refer to conduct performed by “Defendants,” but never mention

3

any acts specifically performed by the federal defendants. Plaintiffs therefore fail to give the

4

federal defendants fair notice of a legally cognizable claim against them. See Malletier v.

5

The Flea Mkt., Inc., 2009 WL 1625946, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2009).

6

Conclusion

7

The United States’ motion to dismiss (Docket no. 44) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims

8

against the federal defendants are DISMISSED. If Plaintiffs think they can amend their

9

complaint to fix the problems identified in this order and the United States’ motion to dismiss,

10
11
12

they may file an amended complaint no later than July 6, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 27, 2016

13
14

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

15cv568