United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee
BRIAN K. SANDERS, Plaintiff,
USA and TN & USPO, Defendants.
K. Lee Magistrate Judge
R. McDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Brian K. Sanders, a federal prisoner confined at the Beckley
Federal Correctional Institution in Beaver, West Virginia,
filed a complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2401,
2671 et seq. (Doc. 1.) The Court previously granted
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
7) and will now screen Plaintiff's complaint in
accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act
complaint, Plaintiff alleges:
I was arrested and charge[d] with a federal crime against the
UNITED STATES By the USA/AUSA/ED TN & False &
Incorrect/Inaccurate information was place[d] in my PSI/SOR
that violated my rights as a CITIZEN within the State of TN
under the 1956 & 1957 State & Federal Jurisdictional
Act “Analysis of State Constitutional provisions and
statutes of general effect concerning the acquisition of
legislative jurisdiction by the United States. Tennessee
General acts of cession repealed (Section 1, Tennessee Acts,
1943, Chapter 10). Which makes the actions imposed in Case #
[1:09-cr-00098-13] Null and Void; and the Non-response by the
Government and attempt to get an Extension of Time filed
06/27/2018 was indeed Fraud upon the Court and is in
“Default Status” therefore this claim is ripe for
settleing [sic] without further Delays w/Motion for Summary
Now base[d] on what the Government and USPO has put me
through, I have suffered two kinds of PTSD & PTSI in
violation under the (FTCA) 28 USCS §§ 1364, and
2671-2680 while being held by actions of officers acting
under the USA/USPO and others known and unknown.
The Extent of my injury where my Mind, Body & Soul has
been put through a test after being place[d] in my present
conditions with no disregards for my Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of Happiness, not to include the lost of love ones
since being place in my current conditions . . . .
(Doc. 1, at 1.) Although not clear, it appears Plaintiff is
alleging that, by including false or incorrect information in
his presentence report, his confinement is somehow improper
and he has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a
result. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff is asserting
claims under the FTCA against the United States, the United
States Probation Office, and the Tennessee Probation Office.
(See generally id.)
the PLRA, district courts must screen prisoner complaints
“in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity”
and sua sponte dismiss any claims that are frivolous
or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or are
against a defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(a)-(b). The dismissal
standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and in Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), “governs
dismissals for failure state a claim under [28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A] because the relevant
statutory language tracks the language in Rule
12(b)(6).” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468,
470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus, to survive an initial review
under the PLRA, a complaint “must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570). Courts liberally construe pro se
pleadings filed in civil rights cases and hold them to a less
stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However,
allegations that give rise to a mere possibility that a
plaintiff might later establish undisclosed facts supporting
recovery are not well-pled and do not state a plausible claim
for relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570. Formulaic
and conclusory recitations of the elements of a claim which
are not supported by specific facts are also insufficient to
state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
the precise nature of Plaintiff's allegations and claims
is unclear, any claims advanced under the FTCA must be
dismissed because he has not exhausted his administrative
remedies. Under the FTCA,
[a]n action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the
United States for money damages for injury or loss of
property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent
or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government
while acting within the scope of his office or employment,
unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to
the appropriate Federal agency and his claim ...