DIGIOVANNI v. UNKNOWN FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS OFFICERS
2:10-cv-00301
| S.D. Ind. | Nov 17, 2010Background
- Plaintiff Anthony Digiovanni filed a complaint against unknown Federal Bureau of Prisons officers in the Southern District of Indiana.
- Judgment granted in forma pauperis status; but a separate order under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) for fee collection is issued.
- The court notes that the United States is the proper defendant for FTCA actions, which is not alleged here.
- The complaint asserts negligent loss of personal property by prison officials, not actionable under Bivens or FTCA.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the court must screen and dismiss claims failing to state a claim.
- Judge Lawrence concludes the complaint is facially meritless and dismissal is mandatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTCA viability depends on United States as defendant | Digiovanni argues FTCA may apply. | United States must be proper defendant; it is not named. | FTCA claim is not viable; United States not named as defendant. |
| Bivens viability for negligent property loss | Bivens claim may address misconduct by federal agents. | Negligence is not actionable under the Constitution, so Bivens fails. | Bivens claim not viable for negligent property loss. |
| Failure to state a claim under 1915A | Plaintiff seeks relief under federal tort theories. | Complaint lacks viable legal basis; no cognizable claim. | Dismissal mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023 (7th Cir. 1996) (filing fee owed notwithstanding in forma pauperis status)
- Sisk v. United States, 756 F.2d 497 (7th Cir. 1985) (FTCA tort theory; proper defendant is United States)
- Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2008) (FTCA requires United States as defendant)
- Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2005) (pro se plaintiffs control whom to sue)
- Sellers v. Henman, 41 F.3d 1100 (7th Cir. 1994) (negligence not actionable under the Constitution)
- Sanders v. Sheahan, 198 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 1999) (PLRA screening requirement for prisoner complaints)
- Jones v. Bock, sct (2007) (Rule to dismiss for failure to state a claim; 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b))
- Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2002) (screening and dismissal standards under PLRA)