Chandler v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54973
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff Johnny Ray Chandler, Sr., while incarcerated at USP Lewisburg, alleges he proposed marriage to Unit Manager Susan Stover by an inmate request; Stover filed a disciplinary report charging him with Making a Sexual Proposal (Code 206).
- A disciplinary hearing found Chandler guilty and imposed sanctions; Chandler thereafter filed tort claims with the BOP alleging abuse of process, false accusation, and defamation, which the BOP denied.
- Chandler filed a civil complaint in D.C. Superior Court on July 20, 2016 against the BOP, Stover, and the hearing officer Angelo Jordan seeking $100,000 per defendant; the case was removed to federal court.
- Defendants certified Stover and Jordan acted within the scope of employment and moved to dismiss; the court notified Chandler of filing requirements but he did not oppose the motion.
- The court addressed two dispositive grounds: (1) failure to exhaust/timely file under the FTCA and statutory exceptions (including libel/slander exclusion); and (2) claim preclusion (res judicata) based on a prior federal suit involving the same facts in which judgment was entered for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness/Exhaustion under FTCA | Chandler pursued administrative tort claims and then sued; his suit should proceed | Plaintiff filed suit more than six months after BOP denied administrative claims; FTCA requires timely filing and exhaustion | Dismissed — untimely/failed to meet FTCA filing requirements |
| FTCA libel/slander exclusion | Claims for defamation are compensable under FTCA | FTCA expressly excludes libel and slander from waiver of sovereign immunity (28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)) | Dismissed — defamation claims not within FTCA waiver |
| Res judicata / claim preclusion | New suit advances same facts but framed as new legal theory; should be allowed | Prior federal case involved same nucleus of facts and resulted in judgment for defendants; plaintiff did not appeal | Dismissed — claims barred by res judicata |
| Unopposed motion practice | Chandler did not respond to motion; may be treated as conceded | Defendants asked dismissal; court must still consider merits per controlling precedent | Court considered merits and granted dismissal on substantive grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (district court may warn pro se litigant about procedural obligations)
- Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (same; notice regarding failure to respond to dispositive motions)
- Cohen v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of the District of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (court should be cautious in applying local rule to treat unopposed motions as conceded)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (sovereign immunity bars suit except where Congress waives it)
- Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1962) (FTCA is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity)
- Mittleman v. United States, 104 F.3d 410 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (FTCA timing and exhaustion requirements for filing suit after administrative denial)
- Simpkins v. District of Columbia Gov’t, 108 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (libel and slander claims against federal employees acting within scope are excluded under FTCA)
- U.S. Indus., Inc. v. Blake Constr. Co., Inc., 765 F.2d 195 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (plaintiff should present all claims arising from same transaction in one suit)
- Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1979) (res judicata bars subsequent suits on same cause of action)
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (U.S. 1979) (final judgment on merits precludes relitigation)
- Apotex, Inc. v. FDA, 393 F.3d 210 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (same nucleus of facts test for determining same cause of action)
- Hardison v. Alexander, 655 F.2d 1281 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (res judicata bars grounds for relief already opportunity to litigate)
- I.A.M. Nat’l Pension Fund v. Indus. Gear Mfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (res judicata forecloses matters that could have been litigated)
- Peters v. District of Columbia, 873 F. Supp. 2d 158 (D.D.C. 2012) (res judicata applies where current claims mirror those in prior dismissed action)