Bernier v. Obama
242 F. Supp. 3d 31
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Jean-Gabriel Bernier, a federal prisoner with chronic Hepatitis C and evidence of liver fibrosis/cirrhosis (FibroSure, biopsies), requested Harvoni treatment; BOP denied treatment based primarily on APRI scores and older biopsy data.
- Bernier alleges the denial reflects BOP policy/practice of over-reliance on APRI (and cost-avoidance) and that BOP refused to place prisoners in Gilead’s patient assistance program.
- He also challenged housing: he was placed in an overcrowded "six-man cell" (space designed for four) and alleges cell assignments are made by race/ethnicity.
- Procedurally, defendants moved to dismiss (Federal Defendants and Gilead). Bernier previously sought preliminary injunctive relief, which the court denied.
- The court denied Bivens (individual-capacity) claims on qualified immunity grounds except it allowed an Eighth Amendment official-capacity claim (for injunctive relief) alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs to proceed; all other claims against Federal Defendants were dismissed. Gilead’s motion to dismiss was granted in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Harvoni states an Eighth Amendment claim (deliberate indifference) | Bernier: denial despite FibroSure/biopsy showing cirrhosis, BOP improperly relied on APRI and cost, risking irreversible liver damage | FedDefs: decision was a medical judgment; not deliberately indifferent; qualified immunity bars Bivens money claims; dismissal warranted | Court: Pleading suffices to state an Eighth Amendment claim for injunctive relief (official-capacity); Bivens money claims dismissed on qualified immunity |
| Whether denial of Harvoni / exclusion from patient assistance program violates Fifth Amendment equal protection (race, age, prisoner status) | Bernier: denial and exclusion were motivated by race, age, and prisoner status | FedDefs/Gilead: no factual allegations linking decisions to protected classifications; prisoner status is not a suspect class; rational-basis applies | Court: Dismissed — complaint lacks factual support to plausibly allege discrimination |
| Whether housing in a six-man cell violates the Eighth Amendment | Bernier: overcrowding, lack of privacy, ventilation and stress amounted to cruel and unusual punishment | FedDefs: conditions, while unpleasant, do not meet Eighth Amendment threshold | Court: Dismissed — allegations insufficient to show "barbarous" conditions or evolving standards violation |
| Whether cell assignments based on race/ethnicity violate the Fifth Amendment | Bernier: BOP assigns cells by race/ethnicity, disadvantaging blacks | FedDefs: no specific factual allegations showing discriminatory practice or lack of penological justification | Court: Dismissed — bald assertions without factual detail are implausible |
| Whether Gilead is subject to suit (APA, Bivens, ACA §1557) or is a state actor for providing drugs/patient assistance | Bernier: Gilead supplied Harvoni to BOP and ran a patient assistance program; thus it acted with the government and is subject to ACA/constitutional claims | Gilead: private company; not an agency or state actor; not subject to APA or Bivens; ACA §1557 applies only to covered "health programs or activities" receiving federal assistance; plaintiff pleads no facts showing coverage | Court: Dismissed all claims against Gilead — not an agency, not proper Bivens defendant, and ACA claim inadequately pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment requires adequate medical care)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference requires subjective awareness of substantial risk)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (two-step qualified immunity framework)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 226 (courts may choose order of qualified-immunity prongs)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied constitutional damages action)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se prisoner Eighth Amendment pleadings construed liberally re: withheld hepatitis medication)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (affirmed and applied Twombly plausibility standard)
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (Eighth Amendment standards for double-celling and conditions)
- Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (private contractors’ acts are not automatically state action)
- Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (Bivens does not extend to private corporations)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (standard for preliminary injunction)