Johnson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Filing 122

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS in part Magistrate Judge Acostas Findingsand Recommendation 120 . Specifically, the Court (1) GRANTS Defendants Motion 102 to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint to the extent that the Court concludes Plaintiff has not esta blished this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint no later than August 9, 2018, to add allegations sufficient to establish that [Plaintiff] timely submitted, and that the BOP timely rec eived, his 2014 IACA Claim; and (3) DENIES Plaintiffs Motion 116 to Supplement [the Third] Amended Complaint.Because the Court concludes Plaintiff has not establishedthis Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court alsoconcludes it is unclear that it has the authority to evaluate thesufficiency of Plaintiffs claim. The Court, therefore, DECLINESto adopt the remaining Findings and Recommendation as to whetherPlaintiff failed to state a claim. The Court advises Plaintiff that the Magistrate Judge will review Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Complaint and will recommend sua sponte dismissal of the Fourth Amended Complaint if it fails to comply with the May 30, 2018, Findings and Recommendation or this Courts Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a Fourth Amended Complaint by August 9, 2018, or if Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Complaint does not comply with the Findings and Recommendation or this Courts Order, the Court will dismiss this matter with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 16th day of July, 2018 by United States Senior District Judge Anna J. Brown (copy of this order mailed to plaintiff) (peg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LARRY DALE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

3:15-CV-00581-AC
ORDER

v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant.

BROWN, Senior Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and
Recommendation (#120) on May 30, 2018, in which he recommends the
Court deny in part Defendant’s Motion (#102) to Dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint on the ground of failure to state a claim;
grant in part Defendant’s Motion (#102) to Dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint on the ground that Plaintiff fails to establish
this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction; grant Plaintiff leave
to file a Fourth Amended Complaint “to add allegations sufficient

1 - ORDER

to establish that [Plaintiff] timely submitted, and that the BOP
timely received, his 2014 IACA Claim”; and deny Plaintiff’s
Motion (#116) to Supplement [the Third] Amended Complaint.
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its
obligation to review the record de novo.
561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009).

See Dawson v. Marshall,

See also United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).
Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court
adopts the Findings and Recommendation to the extent that the
Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on the ground that
Plaintiff has not established this Court has subject-matter
jurisdiction, grants Plaintiff leave to file a Fourth Amended
Complaint, and denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement [the
Third] Amended Complaint.

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS in part Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings
and Recommendation (#120).
1.

Specifically, the Court

GRANTS Defendant’s Motion (#102) to Dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint to the extent that the Court
concludes Plaintiff has not established this Court has
subject-matter jurisdiction;

2.
2 - ORDER

GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a Fourth Amended

Complaint no later than August 9, 2018, “to add
allegations sufficient to establish that [Plaintiff]
timely submitted, and that the BOP timely received, his
2014 IACA Claim”; and
3.

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion (#116) to Supplement [the
Third] Amended Complaint.

Because the Court concludes Plaintiff has not established
this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court also
concludes it is unclear that it has the authority to evaluate the
sufficiency of Plaintiff’s claim.

The Court, therefore, DECLINES

to adopt the remaining Findings and Recommendation as to whether
Plaintiff failed to state a claim.
The Court advises Plaintiff that the Magistrate Judge will
review Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint and will recommend
sua sponte dismissal of the Fourth Amended Complaint if it fails
to comply with the May 30, 2018, Findings and Recommendation or
this Court’s Order.

If Plaintiff fails to file a Fourth Amended

Complaint by August 9, 2018, or if Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended
Complaint does not comply with the Findings and Recommendation or
this Court’s Order, the Court will dismiss this matter with

3 - ORDER

prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 16th day of July, 2018.

/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States Senior District Judge

4 - ORDER