Chandler v. Bureau of Prisons
Civil Action No. 2016-1892
| D.D.C. | Jan 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Johnny Ray Chandler, an ADX-Florence inmate, sued the BOP and psychologist Neal Kimbel alleging interference with his mental-health treatment and seeking $50,000 in damages.
- Chandler alleged a relapse of depression/OCD in late 2015 and that Dr. Kimbel prevented him from receiving counseling from his preferred psychologist (Dr. Mann).
- Chandler filed an administrative tort claim with the BOP on June 20, 2016; the BOP acknowledged receipt and denied the claim on August 18, 2016 (the six-month administrative period had not elapsed when he filed suit).
- The defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss or for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; Chandler did not file an opposition and moved to amend his complaint to add unrelated matters.
- The court denied leave to amend (would materially change the case and plaintiff is a prolific, restricted filer) and addressed defendants’ motion on the merits rather than deem it conceded.
- The court treated the claim as brought under the FTCA (liberally construing the pro se pleading and treating the United States as the defendant) and dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under both the FTCA and the PLRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTCA exhaustion (timing) | Chandler had presented an administrative tort claim before filing suit. | Chandler filed federal suit before the six-month period to deem agency action a final denial had elapsed; thus FTCA remedies not exhausted. | Dismissed: suit filed prematurely under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). |
| PLRA exhaustion (BOP grievance process) | Chandler pursued BOP remedies via formal requests. | Chandler failed to complete all tiers of the BOP Administrative Remedy Program; none of the relevant grievances reached the Office of General Counsel. | Dismissed: PLRA requires proper exhaustion of available administrative remedies. |
| Motion to amend complaint | Chandler sought to amend to add different factual allegations. | Amendment would radically alter scope and appear to circumvent pre-filing restrictions; plaintiff has restrictive filing history. | Denied: proposed amendment improperly broadens the case and is disallowed. |
| Failure to oppose dispositive motion / local rule | Chandler did not oppose; local rule permits treating motions as conceded. | Courts should not grant dispositive motions as conceded without considering recent D.C. Cir. guidance. | Court considered merits despite no opposition and granted defendants’ motion on exhaustion grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (establishes sovereign immunity/consent to suit principles)
- Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1 (FTCA is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (FTCA exhaustion is jurisdictional; suit barred until administrative remedies exhausted)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (PLRA exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (exhaustion requires compliance with procedural rules)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (courts may not excuse failure to exhaust under the PLRA)
- Cohen v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of the District of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476 (cautions against granting unopposed dispositive motions without considering merits)
- Winston & Strawn, LLP v. McLean, 843 F.3d 503 (same guidance regarding unopposed summary-judgment motions)