West v. United States of America
ORDER to Dismiss in Part and to Draw in Part by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/23/14. Defendants O'Donnell, Rodriquez, J. Davis, and Federal Bureau of Prisons terminated. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01836-BNB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
J. DAVIS, Corrections Officer,
RODRIQUEZ, Corrections Officer, and
O’DONNELL, Corrections Officer,
ORDER TO DISMISS IN PART AND TO DRAW IN PART
Plaintiff, Derrick West, is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Florence, Colorado. Plaintiff initiated this action by
filing pro se a Civil Rights Complaint. Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland reviewed the
Complaint, found it was deficient, and directed Plaintiff to file his claims on a Courtapproved form, which Plaintiff did on July 22, 2014.
After review of the July 22 Prisoner Complaint, Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
directed Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to clarify if he intends to pursue only a Federal
Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim or if he desires to assert both an FTCA claim and a claim
under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971). Magistrate Judge Shaffer also directed Plaintiff to name proper defendants and
assert what they did to violate his constitutional rights if he intends to
assert a Bivens claim and to state in the Request for Relief section of the Complaint
form what relief he desires.
On September 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. In the caption of
the Complaint form, Plaintiff has named five defendants: (1) United States of America;
(2) Federal Bureau of Prisons; (3) J. Davis, Corrections Officer; (4) Rodriquez,
Corrections Officer; and (5) O’Donnell, Corrections Officer. In the Jurisdiction section of
the Complaint form, Plaintiff indicates he is filing this action only pursuant to the FTCA,
28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2671-80. Plaintiff does not indicate that he intends to file this
action pursuant to Bivens.
Plaintiff, however, does assert in the body of the Complaint that two of the
correctional officers he names in the caption intentionally placed him in the same cell as
another inmate and watched as the inmate assaulted Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief and money damages.
Nothing that Plaintiff asserts in the Cause of Action section of the Complaint
form, however, indicates that Plaintiff intends to assert a Bivens claim against the three
correctional officers. In Claim One, Plaintiff only refers to the FTCA as a basis for this
action based on the officers’ actions, and in Claim Two, he states the prison officials
displayed “negligence” and “reckless disregard” for his safety. Am. Compl., ECF No.
17, at 6. Plaintiff does refer to the Constitution and to Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
844 (1994), in Claim Two, but he does not state with any specificity that the officers’
actions inflicted cruel and unusual punishment or were violations of the United States
Constitution. Based on Plaintiff’s failure to identify Bivens as a basis for jurisdiction and
to assert a specific constitutional violation against Defendants O’Donnell, Rodriquez,
and Davis, the Court finds these defendants are improperly named parties to this action.
Defendant Federal Bureau of Prisons also is an improperly named party because
the only proper defendant in an FTCA claim is the United States. See Oxendine v.
Kaplan, 241 F.3d 1272, 1275 n.4 (10th Cir. 2001). The Court, therefore, will dismiss
Defendants Federal Bureau of Prisons, O’Donnell, Rodriquez, and Davis. Accordingly,
ORDERED that Defendants Federal Bureau of Prisons, J. Davis, Rodriquez, and
O’Donnell are dismissed as improperly named parties to this action. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the FTCA claim asserted against the United States of
America shall be drawn to a presiding judge and when appropriate to a magistrate
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 23rd day of
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
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?