Todd Gibbons v. Bob Ferguson , 599 F. App'x 786 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TODD ROY GIBBONS, No. 13-35902
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05189-BHS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HONORABLE BOB FERGUSON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Todd Roy Gibbons appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissing his complaint
alleging that the United States, through Washington state agencies and actors,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny
Gibbons’s request for oral argument by telephone set forth in his reply brief.
improperly diagnosed and treated his disabilities. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s finding that it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction, Arrington v. Wong, 237 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 2001), and
review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of leave to proceed IFP,
Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). We
affirm.
The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over Gibbons’s Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action because
Gibbons failed to show that he exhausted his administrative remedies before filing
the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (requiring that a federal agency first deny an
administrative claim in writing or fail to make a final disposition of the claim
within six months after it is filed); Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th
Cir. 2000) (the filing of an administrative claim before filing an action under the
FTCA is jurisdictional and “must be strictly adhered to” (citation and internal
quotation mark omitted)). It follows that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying Gibbons’s request to proceed IFP. See Minetti, 152 F.3d at
1115 (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying IFP
application where plaintiff lacked standing).
All pending motions are denied.
2 13-35902
AFFIRMED.
3 13-35902