Ramos-Quiroz v. United States

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CRISTOBAL RAMOS-QUIROZ, No. 1:24-cv-00701-JLT-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 13 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant.

17 The instant action was transferred to this Court by the United States Court of Federal Claims on June 17, 2024. (ECF Nos. 1, 7.)

19 I.

20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff previously filed an action in this Court pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which was dismissed on September 20, 2021, for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. See Quiroz v. United States of America, No. 1:21-cv-00364-AWI-SAB (PC).

25 /// /// /// 1 On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed an action in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking relief for unjust conviction and imprisonment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495 and 2513. Prior to a response from the government, the action was dismissed for Plaintiff to seek the jurisdictionally required certificate of innocence. (ECF No. 6 at 6.)

5 On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (Id.) Therein, Plaintiff attached a November 16, 2023, letter from ICE denying his December 13, 2022 Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim alleging he was wrongfully deported based on a wrongful conviction. (Id.) 9 On June 13, 2024, the United States Court of Federal Claims found that Plaintiff “intended to comply with the instructions included in the November 13, 2023 ICE letter and challenge the agency’s denial of his FTCA claim by filing suit in the ‘appropriate United States District Court.’ ” (ECF No. 6 at 7.) The Court found that because it was not the proper forum to hear the FTCA suit, rather than dismiss the action, it was transferred to this Court and docketed as a new case. (Id. at 8.) More specifically, the Court stated “[t]he reason for these unorthodox actions is simple: [Plaintiff] improvidently docketed and transmitted notice of appeal does not relate to the action originally filed (and voluntary dismissed) in this Court and is clearly untimely.” (Id.) 18 As the case presently stands, there is no operative complaint on file upon which this Court can determine what, if any, claims Plaintiff intends to bring in this action.1 Thus, in order for this action to proceed, Plaintiff must submit an operative complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). Further, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff’s complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that a complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading.

1 Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis the Court is obligated to screen Plaintiff’s operative complaint sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

1 Il.

2 ORDER 3 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall submit 5 an operative complaint which shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length; 6 and 7 2. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss the 8 action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le | Dated: _August 22, 2024 _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE