Opinion
20-17435
09-22-2021
AZIZI ANSARI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FELIPE MARTINEZ, Warden, FCI Safford; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 4:20-cv-00164-RM-PSOT for the District of Arizona Rosemary Marquez, District Judge, Presiding
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Federal prisoner Azizi Ansari appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") and Bivens claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ansari's FTCA claim as time-barred because he asserted the claim more than six months after the federal agency denied his claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) ("A tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred . . . unless action is begun within six months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented.").
The district court properly dismissed Ansari's Eighth Amendment claims because, even if a Bivens remedy is available for these claims, Ansari failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837 (1994) (to challenge his conditions of confinement, a prisoner must show both that he was subjected to a sufficiently serious deprivation and that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety); Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1196 (9th Cir. 2000) (an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim requires punishment which is "offensive to human dignity" (citation omitted)).
AFFIRMED.