FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GONZALO VALDOVINOS-BLANCO, No. 13-16289
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00211-BAM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NEIL H. ADLER, Warden; BURNETT
RUCKER, M.D.; MANAGEMENT AND
TRAINING CORPORATION; FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 14, 2014***
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Gonzalo Valdovinos-Blanco appeals pro se the district court’s judgment
dismissing, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), his action alleging deliberate
indifference to his medical needs and violation of his Eight Amendment rights.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Because Valdovinos-Blanco alleged wrongdoing at a federal prison rather
than wrongdoing by persons acting under color of state law, the magistrate judge
properly characterized Valdovinos-Blanco’s claims as an action under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), not
an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348,
355 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 255 n.2 (2006);
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2011).
Valdovinos-Blanco contends that the magistrate judge erred by dismissing
his action without granting leave to amend. He was imprisoned at a privately
operated federal prison. A Bivens action alleging improper medical care may not
be pursued against any of the defendants in this action. See Minneci v. Pollard,
132 S. Ct. 617, 626 (2012) (holding that federal prisoner may not pursue a Bivens
claim against privately employed personnel working at a privately operated federal
prison where the allegedly wrongful conduct is of a kind that typically falls within
the scope of traditional state tort law, such as improper medical care); Correctional
2
Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 63 (2001) (holding that a Bivens action
may not be brought against a private corporation); FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471,
484-86 (1994) (holding that a Bivens cause of action may not be brought against a
government agency). Because the magistrate judge correctly concluded that
Valdovinos-Blanco cannot cure this deficiency by amendment, she did not abuse
her discretion by dismissing the action without leave to amend. See Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of
review and explaining that leave to amend should be granted unless the
deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment).
AFFIRMED.
3