IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

EDGAR VIRGILIO PLAINTIFF COLMENARES-FIERRO

v. Case No: 4:24-CV-00437-LPR

C. GARRET, Warden, FCI-Forrest City, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Plaintiff Edgar Virgilio Colmenares-Fierro initiated this pro se lawsuit on May 14, 2024 and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis.1 His Complaint was initially dismissed due to some issues surrounding a mailing address.2 Those issues were remedied, the case was reopened, and an Amended Complaint and another motion to proceed in forma pauperis was filed.3 Because Mr. Colmenares-Fierro reports little savings and no employment, his IFP motion is GRANTED.4 Mr. Colmenares-Fierro has also filed a motion requesting leave to re-file his FTCA Complaint along with additional exhibits.5 The Court construes this request as a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and GRANTS the Motion.6 The Court directs the Clerk to file Doc. 20 on the case docket as a Second Amended Complaint.7 The case is now ripe for review.

1 Compl. (Doc. 2); Mot. for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1). 2 See Orders (Docs. 6, 8, 11). 3 Am. Compl. (Doc. 13); Am. Mot. for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 12). 4 Am. Mot. for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 12); see Martin-Trigona v. Stewart,

(8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (complaint can be filed if plaintiff qualifies by economic status under

(a)). 5 Mot. for Leave to Re-File Petition Under FTCA (Doc. 20). 6

7 In amending his complaint, Mr. Colmenares-Fierro abandoned Warden Garret as a named defendant. The Clerk is directed to terminate Warden Garret on the docket sheet. Next, the Court must screen Mr. Colmenares-Fierro’s Second Amended Complaint to determine whether the cause of action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a party immune to such relief.8 A pro se litigant’s complaint must be construed liberally.9 Nonetheless, the complaint must “allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced.”10 The Court must also have jurisdiction to hear this case.11

Mr. Colmenares-Fierro brings claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the Bureau of Prisons, alleging that he was unlawfully held 472 days beyond his prison release date.12 He has exhausted this claim administratively with the BOP.13 The BOP denied his claim, asserting that Mr. Colmenares-Fierro’s later release was caused by a delayed receipt of information rather than by BOP staff negligence.14 Mr. Colmenares-Fierro challenges this result. Mr. Colmenares-Fierro’s claims will be served. The Clerk is directed to prepare and deliver a summons, along with a copy of the Second Amended Complaint and this Order, to the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Arkansas for service on Defendants at the following addresses:

 Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Room 4400, Washington D.C. 20530;

 Johnathan D. Ross, Acting United States Attorney, Eastern District of Arkansas, P.O. Box 1229, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-1229; and

8

(e)(2); Martin-Trigona,

. 9 See Estelle v. Gamble,

(1976). 10 Stone v. Harry,

(8th Cir. 2004). 11 See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment,

(1998) (“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.”) (quoting Ex Parte McCardle,

(1868)). 12 Second Am. Compl. (Doc. 20) at 24. 13

(a). 14 Second Am. Compl. (Doc 20) at 17. ° Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 320 First St. NW, Washington, DC 20534. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of June 2025.

LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE