James James v. United States , 467 F. App'x 611 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES W. JAMES, No. 10-17535
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05149-MEJ
v.
MEMORANDUM *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DUKE
TERRELL, Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maria-Elena James, Chief Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted January 17, 2012 ***
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Former federal prisoner James W. James appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging claims under Bivens v. Six
*
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).
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and
the Federal Tort Claims Act (the “FTCA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Miller v.
Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 619 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed James’s claim against the individual
defendants because he failed to establish that their alleged deliberate indifference
to his medical needs at a facility in Rochester, Minnesota constituted minimum
contacts with the forum state to warrant exercising personal jurisdiction over them.
See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004)
(three-pronged minimum contacts analysis); see also Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S.
783, 789 (1984) (“effects” test for a prong of the minimum contacts analysis).
The district court properly dismissed James’s constitutional claim against the
United States on the basis of sovereign immunity. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S.
471, 477-78 (1994) (the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for
claims of alleged constitutional violations).
The district court properly dismissed James’s FTCA claim against the
United States because he failed to file it within six months of the date of the notice
of denial of his administrative claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); see also Hatchell v.
United States, 776 F.2d 244, 246 (9th Cir. 1985) (FTCA action commenced three
2 10-17535
days beyond the six-month limitations period was barred).
James’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed waived. See
Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 10-17535