Decker v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
Filing
29
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Re: 28 Amended Complaint ) (RGG, Chambers)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SANDRA K. DECKER
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 15-CV-0068-CVE-PJC
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court sua sponte on an amended complaint (Dkt. # 28) filed by
plaintiff. The Court addresses plaintiff’s amended complaint sua sponte because “[f]ederal courts
‘have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the
absence of a challenge from any party,’ and thus a court may sua sponte raise the question of
whether there is subject matter jurisdiction ‘at any stage in the litigation.’” See 1mage Software,
Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 459 F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y &
H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006)); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at
any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
In this case, plaintiff is proceeding pro se and, consistent with Supreme Court and Tenth
Circuit precedent, the Court will construe her pro se pleadings liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972); Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff purports to
assert a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the Federal Bureau of Prisons for injuries
she received while in federal custody. Dkt. # 28, at 3. In a prior opinion and order, this Court
explained that it has no jurisdiction to hear a case that asserts an FTCA claim but names any party
other than the United States. Dkt. # 25, at 2. The Court permitted plaintiff to file an amended
complaint naming the United States, but plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to name the proper
party. Id. Because the amended complaint names the Federal Bureau of Prisons and not the United
States, regardless of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court cannot permit plaintiff to proceed with the
lawsuit when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over her claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. # 28) is
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate judgment of dismissal is entered
herewith.
DATED this 15th day of October, 2015.
2
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?