James James v. United States

MEMORANDUM

Former federal prisoner James W. James appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (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 , 104 S.Ct. 1482 , 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (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…