Simon Ranteesi v. Mark Constance

MEMORANDUM

Simon F. Ranteesi, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of his use of the drug Paxil. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal of an action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir.2008). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Ranteesi’s claims against the United States was proper because Ranteesi failed to meet the FTCA’s claims presentation requirements, and thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See Blair v. IRS, 304 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th Cir.2002) (a district court has no jurisdiction over an FTCA action unless the plaintiff first meets the claims presentation requirement; a claim is not deemed presented unless the plaintiff files “a sum certain damages claim”).

The district court properly dismissed Ranteesi’s claims against Raley’s because, even with the benefit of the discovery rule…