Filed suit against USA for "circumcision"

I was born in a Naval hospital.  Legally, this makes my complaint different than those that were born in a civilian situation.  In the military, people don't operate as autonomously as they do otherwise.  Thus, I see the action as one taken by the military as an entity unto itself vs. one taken by an individual.

I filed a criminal complaint several months ago; the Sheriff passed the complaint to the Navy.  I wrote about that in the following:  https://johnadkison.blogspot.com/2018/10/filed-criminal-complaint-for.html

I filed a tort claim with the US Navy.  Of course, they came back with the FTCA statute of limitations.  I'm hoping I can apply equitable tolling and the "18 U.S. Code § 3283 Offenses against children" codes to get a federal judge to override that.  At some point in history, I believe it was assumed that non-therapeutic preputial amputations wouldn't be a legal problem whereas there is no law that says it is not and plenty that say it is.

The case number is 19 CV 00853 RSL filed at the United States District Court, Western District of Washington (in Seattle).

I'm aiming for $1M.  I would use the money to spend the rest of my working years (until I can collect social security) on genital autonomy efforts (probably funnel it through genitalautonomy.org).  I know it's a huge stretch, but, every big thing in history has always been.

Here are my arguments for supporting equitable tolling:

1. The part of plaintiff’s body was amputated during the neonate period, a period that individuals are unlikely to remember the act;
2. Due to the fact that it was removed during the neonatal period, plaintiff never had a chance to understand and experience the body part before it was removed;
3. The procedure was one that had been made a routine one leading the plaintiff to assume that it is a legal one;
4. The remaining body part is never to be exposed in public amongst other people according to decency laws;
5. The procedure is not one that is covered in public education;
6. Plaintiff was a minor when it was performed;
7. The information regarding the anatomy and function of the body part is not well documented in publicly available resources, even in many medical texts;
8. There is no legal precedent for this case, causing for a lengthy discovery period;

I downloaded the "ProSe15Complaint-Violationof CivilRights" form and here is some of the text directly from it:

I chose "No" for Jury Trial.  I don't want to deal with the culture and emotions of a group of people; I prefer to stick with a judge and hope that the judge will stick to the law.

III.A - neither "Federal officials (a Bivens claim)" nor "State or local officials (a § 1983 claim)" seemed to fit; so I left both boxes blank.

III.B - Plaintiff believes that every human has an inalienable right to physical integrity and
bodily autonomy.  More specifically, all living tissue of one’s body, that is natural,
normal and healthy, should be left to that individual to choose to remove or modify in
any way.  Plaintiff believes that the 9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States of America covers this right as a non-enumerated right.
Plaintiff also believes that every human has the right to defend one’s own body as
intended in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Plaintiff also believes that every law abiding citizen should be safe from torture and
the action taken, that is addressed in this complaint, not only inflicted torture during
the act, it also inflicted torture during their life and continues to inflict torture.
Plaintiff also believes that the action taken was part of an unethical human
experimentation.  The purposes for the action were not proven.
Plaintiff believes that their own government exists to protect them from harm and not
be the entity that inflicts unwarranted harm or torture.
Based on these rights, many laws have been written regarding sexual assault of a
minor, child abuse, failure to keep from harm and battery.

III.D - I just realized that I didn't check the "1983" so I wasn't supposed to fill this out, but, here it is anyway:

Washington State law RCW 9A.36.120 “Assault of a child in the first degree” states
“(1) A person eighteen years of age or older is guilty of the crime of assault of a child
in the first degree if the child is under the age of thirteen and the person:
(a) Commits the crime of assault in the first degree, as defined in RCW 9A.36.011,
against the child; or
(b) Intentionally assaults the child and either:
(i) Recklessly inflicts great bodily harm; or
(ii) Causes substantial bodily harm, and the person has previously engaged in a
pattern or practice either of (A) assaulting the child which has resulted in bodily harm
that is greater than transient physical pain or minor temporary marks, or
(B) causing the child physical pain or agony that is equivalent to that produced by
Torture.
(2) Assault of a child in the first degree is a class A felony.”
Washington State law RCW 9A.36.011 “Assault in the first degree” states:
“(1) A person is guilty of assault in the first degree if he or she, with intent to inflict
great bodily harm:
(a) Assaults another with a firearm or any deadly weapon or by any force or means
likely to produce great bodily harm or death; or
(b) Administers, exposes, or transmits to or causes to be taken by another, poison, the
human immunodeficiency virus as defined in chapter 70.24 RCW, or any other
destructive or noxious substance; or
(c) Assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm.
(2) Assault in the first degree is a class A felony.”

IV. - Plaintiff is unaware of the identity of the individual who took the specific action that
excised part of their genitalia.  Plaintiff is unaware of the specifics as to the reasons
the individual performed the action.  Plaintiff understands that the action became a
custom at one point in history that is performed on male infants with high regularity
and was likely never challenged as a legal activity.  Therefore, the plaintiff is holding
the United States federal government liable for gross negligence.

IV.D - A preputial amputation was performed on plaintiff’s body by an individual working

in a medical capacity as an officer of the United States Navy.

V. - Plaintiff’s caretakers were required to apply an unidentified material to the glans of
his penis to prevent remaining tissues from adhering to the glans.  No further
procedure has been available to repair the damage.