Azizi Ansari v. FELIPE MARTINEZ, Warden, FCI Safford;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AZIZI ANSARI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FELIPE MARTINEZ, Warden, FCI Safford;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-17435
D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00164-RM-PSOT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Azizi Ansari appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his action alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(“FTCA”) and Bivens claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
SEP 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-17435
Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ansari’s FTCA claim as time-barred
because he asserted the claim more than six months after the federal agency denied
his claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) (“A tort claim against the United States shall
be forever barred . . . unless action is begun within six months after the date of
mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the
agency to which it was presented.”).
The district court properly dismissed Ansari’s Eighth Amendment claims
because, even if a Bivens remedy is available for these claims, Ansari failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a
plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for
relief); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837 (1994) (to challenge
his conditions of confinement, a prisoner must show both that he was subjected to
a sufficiently serious deprivation and that defendants knew of and disregarded an
excessive risk to his health or safety); Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1196
(9th Cir. 2000) (an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim
requires punishment which is “offensive to human dignity” (citation omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --