Chandler v. Olguin
234 F. Supp. 3d 111
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Johnny Ray Chandler, a BOP inmate with a heart condition (PVC), alleges that on Feb. 27, 2016 nurse Cathlin Olguin failed to check his vitals or respond to severe chest pain.
- Plaintiff filed an administrative tort claim with BOP on March 10, 2016; BOP opened investigations and ultimately denied two claims on June 22 and Sept. 21, 2016.
- Between Feb. 27 and Oct. 1, 2016 the plaintiff submitted 57 formal administrative remedy requests; four reached the BOP Office of General Counsel, but none concerned the Feb. 27 medical incident.
- Plaintiff sued in D.C. Superior Court on June 13, 2016 for medical negligence seeking $75,000; defendants removed to federal court and moved to dismiss or for summary judgment.
- The Court notified plaintiff of the consequences of failing to oppose; plaintiff did not file an opposition. The Court addressed the merits because of recent D.C. Cir. guidance on treating unopposed dispositive motions as conceded.
- The Court concluded plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies under both the FTCA and the PLRA and granted defendants’ motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FTCA exhaustion met before suit | Chandler proceeded after presenting an administrative tort claim; implies timely exhaustion | FTCA requires agency final denial or 6-month lapse; plaintiff sued before final denial/6 months | FTCA exhaustion not met; suit premature; claim dismissed |
| Whether PLRA administrative remedies exhausted | Chandler brought tort/negligence claim alleging denial of medical care | PLRA requires exhaustion of available prison admin remedies; none of Chandler’s final-tier remedies concerned Feb. 27 incident | PLRA exhaustion not met; federal claim barred |
| Whether court may dismiss unopposed motion under local rule | Chandler failed to oppose motion; implicit challenge to dismissal as conceded | Defendants sought dismissal; court cautioned by D.C. Cir. precedents | Court examined merits instead of automatic concession and dismissed on exhaustion grounds |
| Whether sovereign immunity waiver applies | Chandler sued under negligence theory against gov’t employee | Defendants treat claim as FTCA suit against United States and assert FTCA limits | Court treated claim under FTCA framework and found statutory exhaustion requirement fatal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (sovereign immunity and waiver prerequisites)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (FTCA bars suit absent administrative exhaustion)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA exhaustion requirement covers all inmate suits about prison life)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (courts may not excuse failure to exhaust available administrative remedies)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (PLRA requires proper exhaustion, including procedural rules)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (exhaustion required even if relief unavailable through admin process)
- Cohen v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of the District of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (limits on granting unopposed motions under local rule)
- Winston & Strawn, LLP v. McLean, 843 F.3d 503 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (same, in context of summary judgment)
- Jackson v. District of Columbia, 254 F.3d 262 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (prisoner suits require exhaustion of administrative remedies)