SCOTT v. MANENTI et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 4/13/2016. (dmr)(n.m.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOSEPH SCOTT,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action
No. 15-7213 (JBS-AMD)

v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JOHN MANENTI, et al.,
Defendants.

SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge:
1.

On September 30, 2015, Plaintiff Joseph Scott

submitted a civil complaint alleging Defendants violated his
Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care by, among other
things, denying him an MRI of his shoulder after experiencing
excruciating pain for nearly two years. (Complaint, Docket Entry
1). The Court administratively terminated the complaint on
October 14, 2015, for failure to pay the filing fee or submit an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket Entry 4).
Plaintiff paid the filing fee on October 21, 2015, and the Court
reopened the case for review.
2.

Prior to this Court’s review of the complaint pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff filed two motions to amend the
complaint seeking to add a “deliberate indifference” claim as
well as a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28

U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680. (Motions to Amend, Docket Entries
11 and 13).
3.

The Court permitted the complaint to proceed in part

against Drs. Manenti and Morales. The remainder of the
defendants were dismissed. The Court further denied Plaintiff’s
motions to amend without prejudice as the proposed amendments
did not state valid claims. (Order, Docket Entry 18).
4.

On January 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed another motion to

amend the complaint to add a FTCA claim against all defendants,
including those the Court had dismissed in its January 7, 2016
Opinion and Order. (Third Motion to Amend, Docket Entry 27).
5.

Plaintiff attached to his motion a notice of claim

form indicating the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) received a
claim on October 5, 2015, for $5000 due to the alleged
negligence of FCI Fairton personnel. (Id. at 7-10).
6.

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

permits a party to amend a pleading once as a matter of course
twenty-one (21) days after serving the pleading or twenty-one
(21) days “after a responsive pleading or service of a motion
under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R.
Civ. Pro. 15(a)(1)(A)-(B).
7.

The FTCA “operates as a limited waiver of the United

States's sovereign immunity.” White–Squire v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
2 

592 F.3d 453, 456 (3d Cir. 2010). Under the Act, the United
States is liable “in the same manner and to the same extent as a
private individual under like circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 2674.
8.

An FTCA plaintiff may sue only the United States.

Plaintiff’s request to file a FTCA claim against Drs. Morales
and Manenti, the only defendants remaining in this action, is
therefore not permissible. Nor does his proposed amended
complaint state a cause of action that would warrant the
reinstatement of the defendants who were previously dismissed
from the case by the Court as they cannot be sued under the
FTCA. See CNA v. United States, 535 F.3d 132, 138 n.2 (3d Cir.
2008) (“The Government is the only proper defendant in a case
brought under the FTCA.”).
9.

As the proposed amended complain does not state a

valid FTCA claim, the motion to amend is denied without
prejudice. Plaintiff may move to amend his complaint to add a
claim against the United States in accordance with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15.
10.

An appropriate Order follows.

April 13, 2016
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
3