Tubach v. Federal Bureau of Investigations Agency of Sacramento CA
Filing
5
ORDER DISMISSING with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; ORDERED Clerk to enter Judgment, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/28/2011. CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ISABEL TUBACH,
10
11
12
13
14
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01939-AWI-SKO PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM, AND DIRECTING CLERK TO
ENTER JUDGMENT
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS, AGENCY
OF SACRAMENTO, CA,
(Doc. 1)
Defendant.
/
15
16
Plaintiff Isabel Tubach, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
17
civil rights action on November 22, 2011. Because Plaintiff is suing a federal agency for the
18
violation of her rights, the Court construes the action as one brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six
19
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a
20
remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors.
21
Plaintiff alleges that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Sacramento failed to
22
conduct an investigation into her complaints of prison misconduct, which she set forth in a letter to
23
the FBI dated September 23, 2011. Plaintiff seeks damages and a court order requiring the FBI to
24
conduct an investigation.
25
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
26
governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
27
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
28
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief
1
1
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2); 28 U.S.C. §
2
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
3
The FBI, as a federal agency, may not be sued for damages. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471,
4
486, 114 S.Ct. 996 (1994). Further, while individual federal officers may be held liable for damages
5
for the violation of an inmate’s constitutional rights, Correctional Serv. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S.
6
61, 66, 122 S.Ct. 515 (2001), Plaintiff does not have a freestanding, constitutionally-protected right
7
to compel the FBI open an investigation or an inquiry, Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th
8
Cir. 1985). To the extent that Plaintiff’s rights are being violated in prison, her recourse is against
9
those directly involved, and the Court notes that Plaintiff is already pursuing a civil suit in this
10
district based on prison conditions.1 See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, __, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948-
11
49 (2009) (personal involvement required to state a claim).
12
13
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
Dated:
0m8i78
November 28, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court takes judicial notice of case number 1:10-cv-00913-SKO PC.
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?
