TREMANE CARTHEN V. P. SCOTT, No. 21-15063 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 25 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TREMANE DARNELL CARTHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-15063 D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG MEMORANDUM* P. SCOTT; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 17, 2021** Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Tremane Darnell Carthen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging violations of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We vacate and remand. On appeal, Carthen submitted objections to the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations and a proposed amended complaint. Carthen claims that these documents were not filed in the district court due to his prison’s failure to mail the documents. Because Carthen’s proposed amended complaint includes allegations that may cure the deficiencies noted by the findings and recommendations, we vacate the judgment and remand for the district court to consider whether Carthen should be allowed to file an amended complaint. On remand, the district court should address whether a Bivens remedy exists for the various claims Carthen asserts. See Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017). Carthen’s motion to file an amended complaint with this court (Docket Entry No. 5) and motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry Nos. 8 and 9) are denied. VACATED and REMANDED. 2 21-15063

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.