Crum v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
Civil Action No. 2020-3241
D.D.C.Jun 30, 2021Background
- Plaintiff David Crum, a federal prisoner, alleges he was transferred from the D.C. Jail to FCI Beckley on Nov. 13, 2019 without his medical records and was subjected to tuberculosis testing despite medical conditions (hypertension, congestive heart failure, liver infection).
- Crum claims the transfer endangered his life, allowed falsification of a “point custody document,” and resulted in denial of prerelease/halfway-house placement and loss of housing subsidies and Social Security benefits.
- He sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, seeking $50,000 from each defendant, and later filed multiple surreplies after the defendants moved to dismiss.
- Crum asserted a Bivens claim (and, as construed by the court, a §1983 claim against the Mayor) for Eighth Amendment violations.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the court addressed jurisdictional and pleading deficiencies and granted both motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bowser is liable in her individual capacity under §1983 | Bowser or her staff authorized the jail medical unit to act inadequately, causing the transfer without records | No specific allegations of Bowser’s personal involvement; vicarious liability not permitted under §1983 | Dismissed — Crum failed to plead Bowser’s personal involvement |
| Whether Bowser is liable in her official capacity (Monell) | D.C. had a policy/custom on release of medical records that caused harm | No identified municipal policy or factual basis linking policy to injury | Dismissed — no plausible Monell policy or causal facts alleged |
| Whether BOP can be sued under Bivens | Bivens claim for Eighth Amendment damages against BOP for transfer and medical mistreatment | Bivens does not waive sovereign immunity; agencies (and the United States) are not Bivens defendants | Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (sovereign immunity) |
| Whether Bivens applies to Mayor Bowser | Crum initially invoked Bivens against Bowser | Mayor is not a federal official subject to Bivens; claim must be treated as §1983 against local official | Court construed claim against Bowser as §1983 and analyzed accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages remedy against federal officers)
- Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (Bivens remedy unavailable against federal agencies)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (sovereign immunity is jurisdictional)
- Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (municipal policy must be moving force behind constitutional violation)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; no liability absent factual allegations of personal involvement)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Kauffman v. Anglo-Am. Sch. of Sofia, 28 F.3d 1223 (Bivens liability does not run against federal agencies)
- Atchinson v. Dist. of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418 (official-capacity suit is suit against the municipality)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins., 511 U.S. 375 (presumption that cause lies outside limited federal jurisdiction)