Andre Martinez v. United States
682 F. App'x 139
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Martinez, a federal inmate at USP Lewisburg, got into a violent fistfight with another inmate in a recreation area; staff used chemical agents to stop the fight.
- After the fight, officers handcuffed Martinez through the sally port using the facility’s standard procedure; Martinez felt immediate pain in the little finger of his right hand.
- Martinez was treated for contusions, lacerations and a fractured little finger; he later had surgery and permanent loss of dexterity.
- Martinez sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging negligent handcuffing caused the fracture; the case was tried before a Magistrate Judge by consent.
- The Magistrate Judge found the government did not breach a duty and that Martinez’s fracture occurred during the fight (expert testified that the fracture pattern is consistent with striking a hard surface); judgment entered for the United States.
- Martinez appealed, raising tort causation and, for the first time on appeal, assorted constitutional claims (which were not presented below and thus were not considered); the Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the United States (via officers) negligently caused Martinez’s finger fracture by handcuffing | Martinez: felt pain when handcuffed and testified the officer fractured his finger during handcuffing | U.S.: handcuffing followed standard procedure, the video shows no reaction, and medical evidence ties fracture to punching a hard surface during the fight | Held for U.S.: District Court’s finding that injury occurred during fight, not handcuffing, was not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Martinez preserved a "weight of the evidence" / new-trial claim for appeal | Martinez: appellate challenge to factual finding and sufficiency of evidence | U.S.: Martinez failed to move for a new trial below; claim is waived | Held: Waived for failure to move for a new trial; alternatively, no relief warranted on the merits |
| Whether Pennsylvania negligence law supports FTCA liability here | Martinez: negligence elements met because officers caused injury | U.S.: no breach or causation shown under state law standards | Held: Applying Pennsylvania law, plaintiff failed to prove breach and causation, so FTCA claim fails |
| Whether constitutional claims (First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth) are before the court | Martinez: alleged multiple constitutional violations on appeal | U.S.: constitutional claims were not raised in district court (plaintiff had withdrawn BOP claims) | Held: Court declined to consider constitutional claims because they were not presented below and plaintiff had withdrawn BOP claims in amended complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Soc’y for Testing & Materials v. Corrpro Cos., 478 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 2007) (standard of review for bench-trial factual findings)
- Kosiba v. Merck & Co., 384 F.3d 58 (3d Cir. 2004) (appellate review of legal conclusions is plenary)
- Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301 (1992) (FTCA liability is determined by reference to state law)
- Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006) (appellate courts generally require a postverdict motion to preserve new-trial/weight-of-evidence claims)
- Pittsburgh Nat’l Bank v. Perr, 637 A.2d 334 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994) (elements required to establish negligence under Pennsylvania law)