From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoskins v. F.C.C.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 21, 2001
12 F. App'x 540 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion


12 Fed.Appx. 540 (9th Cir. 2001) Andre HOSKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 99-35163. D.C. No. CV-98-1345-ALA. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 21, 2001

Submitted June 11, 2001.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Hoskins' request for oral argument is denied.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Plaintiff appealed pro se from judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, dismissing his action bringing claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff did not state FTCA claim against the Federal Communications Commission because the FTCA provided for suits against the United States, and not individual agencies.

Affirmed.

Page 541.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding.

Before O'SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Andre Hoskins appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) his action bringing claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hoskins' FTCA claim against the Federal Communications Commission because the FTCA provides for suits against the United States, and not individual agencies, for personal injuries arising out of the negligence of federal employees. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2679(a); Allen v. Veterans Admin., 749 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.1984).

The district court properly dismissed Hoskins' section 1983 claims against the remaining defendants because private parties are not generally acting under color of state law, and conclusory allegations, unsupported by fact, are insufficient to state a claim under the Civil Rights Act. See Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-708 (9th Cir.1991).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Hoskins v. F.C.C.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 21, 2001
12 F. App'x 540 (9th Cir. 2001)
Case details for

Hoskins v. F.C.C.

Case Details

Full title:Andre HOSKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 21, 2001

Citations

12 F. App'x 540 (9th Cir. 2001)