Pinkelton v. United States of America

Filing 5

Memorandum Opinion and Order Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice to claims the Plaintiff may properly assert after exhaustion of his administrative remedies. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 5/18/18. Copy mailed to Plaintiff.(R,JM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Roger R. Pinkelton,
Plaintiff,
v.
United States of America,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:18 CV 740
JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Roger R. Pinkelton is a federal prisoner currently housed at the Federal
Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina. He has filed an in forma pauperis complaint in this
action against the United States, alleging medical malpractice in connection with the medical care
he received while he was previously incarcerated at FCI Elkton. (Doc. No. 1.)
Although pleadings filed by pro se litigants are liberally construed and held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007),
federal courts are required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to screen any action in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity, and to dismiss before service any such action the court
determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A; Hill v.

Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). In order to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, a pro se complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state claim
to relief that is plausible on its face. See id. (holding that the dismissal standard articulated in
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)
governs dismissals for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).
Upon initial review, the Court finds the plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed.
Negligence claims against the United States may only be brought under the Federal Tort
Claims Act (“FTCA”), which is the exclusive avenue of recovery for torts committed by federal
government employees. See United States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160, 166 (1991). Before a party may
bring an action under the FTCA, he must first exhaust his administrative remedies by presenting his
claim to the proper federal agency and that agency must deny his claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).
The claimant must give the agency written notice of his claim sufficient to enable the agency to
investigate it. Douglas v. United States, 658 F.2d 445, 447 (6th Cir. 1981). See also Bumgardner
v. United States, 469 F. App’x 414, 417 (6th Cir. Mar. 14, 2012) (recognizing that, under the FTCA,
the failure to exhaust administrative remedies is “jurisdictional”).
The plaintiff’s complaint and its exhibits do not suggest he has properly exhausted his
administrative remedies as required to pursue a tort claim under the FTCA.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This
dismissal is without prejudice to claims the plaintiff may properly assert after exhaustion of his
administrative remedies. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal
from this decision could not be taken in good faith

-2-

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Donald C. Nugent
DONALD C. NUGENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: _May 18, 2018___

-3-