(PC) Gomez v. Management Training Corporation et al, No. 1:2012cv00518 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Granting Motion to Remand and Recommending Dismissing Action for Lack of Jurisdiction, referred to Judge O'Neill, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 11/8/2012. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF

(PC) Gomez v. Management Training Corporation et al Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LINO ZEPEDA GOMEZ, 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00518-LJO-GBC (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND AND RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (Doc. 12) v. MANAGEMENT TRAINING CORPORATION, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS / 16 On April 5, 2012, defendants Lauri Watts, Michael L. Benov, Management Training 17 Corporation, Burnett Rucker (“Defendants”), removed this action from Kern County Superior Court 18 to federal court. Doc. 2; Doc. 3; Doc. 6; Doc. 7. Plaintiff Lino Zepeda Gomez (“Plaintiff”), is a 19 federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this complaint. Doc. 3. On April 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a 20 motion to remand. Doc. 12. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges claims of Eighth Amendment deliberate 21 indifference to Plaintiff’s medical need. Doc. 3 at 21-31. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive 22 and injunctive relief from Defendants, who were employed by Taft Correctional Institution, which 23 is owned and operated by a private company. Doc. 3 at 22-23, 30. 24 The United States Supreme court recently held that a Bivens remedy is not available to a 25 prisoner seeking relief against the employees of a private prison. In Minneci v. Pollard, __U.S.__, 26 132 S. Ct. 617, 626 (2012), the Supreme Court held: 27 28 [W]here . . . a federal prisoner seeks [relief] from privately employed personnel working at a privately operated federal prison, where the Page 1 of 3 Dockets.Justia.com 1 conduct allegedly amounts to a violation of the Eighth Amendment, and where that conduct is of a kind that typically falls within the scope of traditional state tort law . . . the prisoner must seek a remedy under state tort law. We cannot imply a Bivens remedy in such a case. 2 3 Minneci v. Pollard, __U.S.__, 132 S. Ct. 617, 626 (Jan. 10, 2012); accord Mirmehdi v. United 4 States, 689 F.3d 975, 980-81 (9th Cir. 2012). As in Minneci, Plaintiff alleges Eighth Amendment 5 claims; seeks relief from Defendants who are employees of a private prison; and has an alternate 6 remedy under state tort law. 7 The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and, where a court determines that it 8 lacks jurisdiction, it “cannot render judgment but must dismiss the cause at any stage of the 9 proceedings in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light 10 Co., 495 F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 1974). Therefore, in accordance with Minneci, this Court lacks 11 jurisdiction to decide a Bivens claim against Defendant employed by a private prison and dismissal 12 is warranted. Minneci v. Pollard, __U.S.__, 132 S. Ct. 617, 626 (Jan. 10, 2012); accord Mirmehdi 13 v. United States, 689 F.3d 975, 980-81 (9th Cir. 2012). As observed by the Ninth Circuit: 14 “Courts created by statute can have no jurisdiction but such as the statute confers. No one of them can assert a just claim to jurisdiction exclusively conferred on another.” Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. 441, 449 (1850); see also Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 818 (1988) (court lacking jurisdiction to hear a case may not reach the merits even if acting “in the interest of justice”); The Wellness Cmty. v. Wellness House, 70 F.3d 46, 50 (7th Cir. 1995) (“Parties are always put to some expense when they litigate in the wrong court and then suffer a jurisdictional dismissal, but this does not override the important principle that the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.”). 15 16 17 18 19 20 Breed v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 253 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2001). 21 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s motion for remand be granted (Doc. 12); 2. The action be DISMISSED, for lack of jurisdiction; and 3. All remaining motions be denied at moot. 23 24 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 Page 2 of 3 1 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 3 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, parties may file written objections 4 with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 6 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: 0jh02o November 8, 2012 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 3 of 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.