Narrative Opinion Summary
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's dismissal of an action brought by plaintiffs against the United States, primarily under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The plaintiffs' failure to present their claims to the appropriate federal agency rendered most of them non-cognizable, with only their invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims preserved. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' attempt to amend their complaint for a Bivens action, as it improperly named the United States as a defendant. The U.S. Attorney's certification that federal employees acted within their scope of employment during alleged surveillance was affirmed. The district court's decision to dismiss the case with prejudice due to notice and litigation conduct was upheld, as was the rejection of unsubstantiated claims against court personnel. The appellate court's decision was rendered without oral argument, affirming the lower court's judgment and denying a motion to strike supplemental excerpts while allowing the filing of additional excerpts.
Legal Issues Addressed
Bivens Actions - Proper Defendantssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court rejected the Samuels' attempt to amend their complaint to assert a Bivens claim against the United States, as Bivens actions cannot be brought against the federal government.
Reasoning: The court rejected the Samuels' argument for filing a second amended complaint to assert a Bivens claim, noting that their proposed amendment only named the United States as a defendant, which is not permissible in Bivens actions.
Dismissal with Prejudice - Judicial Discretionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The dismissal of the Samuels' action with prejudice was affirmed due to the plaintiffs being informed of the trial date and the court's consideration of government preparedness and litigation length.
Reasoning: The district court acted within its discretion to dismiss the Samuels' action with prejudice due to adequate notice, government preparedness, the lengthy litigation process, and the challenges posed by the Samuels' numerous filings.
Federal Tort Claims Act - Presentment Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Ninth Circuit confirmed that claims must be presented to the appropriate federal agency before filing under the Federal Tort Claims Act, leading to the dismissal of most of the Samuels' claims.
Reasoning: The court found that most of the Samuels' claims were not cognizable under the Federal Tort Claims Act due to their failure to present the claims to the appropriate federal agency prior to filing.
Scope of Employment Certificationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the certification that federal employees acted within their employment scope during the alleged surveillance, supporting the dismissal of claims against them.
Reasoning: Additionally, the court upheld the U.S. Attorney's certification that federal employees were acting within the scope of their employment during the alleged surveillance, as the actions fell under the purview of law enforcement on federal land.
Unsubstantiated Allegations Against Court Personnelsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The allegations of coercion and record tampering by court personnel were found unsubstantiated and were rejected by both the district and appellate courts.
Reasoning: The Samuels alleged coercion and deception by district court personnel, claimed fraudulent destruction of their pleadings, and accused court staff of tampering with the record. However, these allegations were deemed unsubstantiated, and the district court's rejection of these claims was upheld.