Akintoye Laoye v. United States
665 F. App'x 148
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Akintoye Laoye, a Nigerian citizen under ICE electronic monitoring, sued the United States pro se under the FTCA after being unable to undergo corrective jaw surgery because his monitoring bracelet was not removed.
- Laoye attached a doctor’s letter saying the bracelet could not be worn during surgery, complaints to the Office of Inspector General, and a social worker’s letter documenting anxiety and PTSD.
- District Court granted IFP, screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and dismissed for failure to plead sufficient facts (no individual agents identified, no dates, insufficient injury allegations).
- District Court also questioned compliance with the FTCA notice requirement (28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)).
- District Court held amendment would be futile because the “crux” of the complaint alleged constitutional violations, which are not cognizable under the FTCA, and dismissed without leave to amend.
- Third Circuit vacated and remanded, ruling that amendment should have been permitted to add facts, individual defendants, Bivens claims, or a plausible negligence FTCA claim and to clarify notice compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of factual pleading under § 1915(e)(2)(B) | Laoye alleged ICE prevented bracelet removal causing denial of surgery and injury | Complaint lacked specific facts: no agents named, no dates, unclear injuries | Initial pleading insufficient, but plaintiff should be allowed to amend |
| FTCA notice requirement compliance (28 U.S.C. § 2675) | Laoye submitted complaints to OIG as evidence of notice | District Court found it unclear whether statutory notice was satisfied | Ambiguity; plaintiff permitted to amend to clarify notice compliance |
| Whether constitutional claims are cognizable under the FTCA | Laoye alleged constitutional rights violations by ICE agents | Government argued FTCA does not permit constitutional tort claims | Constitutional claims not cognizable under FTCA, but plaintiff may plead Bivens claims against individual agents |
| Whether leave to amend was required before dismissal | Laoye sought to proceed pro se and cure defects | District Court concluded amendment would be futile and denied leave | Third Circuit held dismissal without leave was improper; amendment could cure defects and thus remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (district court generally must afford leave to amend absent futility)
- Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2000) (pro se pleadings should be liberally construed and amendment often permitted)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (FTCA does not permit constitutional tort claims against the United States)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (established implied damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000) (appellate review of dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B) is plenary)