Summary
concluding that an inmate's contentions that administrative remedies were unavailable due to facility lockdowns or officials locking grievance forms in their offices were insufficient, as the plaintiff was "free to submit grievances at all other times."
Summary of this case from May v. SegoviaOpinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01459-CMA-KLM
01-10-2013
LORAL HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. DR. ALLRED, DR. CARTER, SANCHEZ, Case Manager, DERR, Unit Manager, JOHN DOE, Mailroom Supervisor, JANE DOE, Food Supervisor, BUCKNER, Investigator, LINCOLN, D.H.O., and CRANK, Trust Manager, Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for 60-Day Extension [Docket No. 289; Filed September 24, 2012], Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [#292; Filed September 28, 2012], Motion for Contempt [#294; Filed October 1, 2012], Motion for Documents [#295; Filed October 1, 2012], Motion for Contempt of Court [#299; Filed October 22, 2012] and Motion for Status [#303; Filed November 13, 2012] (collectively, "the Motions"). Defendants have not filed a response to any of the Motions.
The Court recently issued a Recommendation [#309] that this action be dismissed. Accordingly,
The only one of the Motions that could have conceivably had an impact on the Court's Recommendation [#309] is the Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [#292]. In Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint attached to the motion, he asserts jurisdiction pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and names the Bureau of Prisons as the sole defendant. [#292-1]. In Bivens, however, the Supreme Court recognized an "implied cause of action for damages against federal agents who allegedly violated the Constitution." Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 473 (citing Bivens, 403 U.S. 388). But this implied cause of action does not extend to suits against a federal agency. Id. Because Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint names the Bureau of Prisons, a federal agency, as the only defendant, jurisdiction over the matter cannot be based on Bivens. As a result, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint would have been denied as futile.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that in light of the Court's Recommendation [#309] that this action be dismissed, Plaintiff's Motions [## 289, 292, 294, 295, 299 and 303] are DENIED AS MOOT.