Durham v. Edenfield, 1:11-cv-00131

Durham, a federal inmate at FCI Big Spring, sues FBOP and FCI Big Spring staff under a Bivens theory for alleged constitutional violations arising from conditions of confinement and First Amendment issues.
Plaintiff claims cruel and unusual punishment (denied commissary access, destruction of PC World magazines, delayed dentures, and inadequate medical care for knee, toe nail, neck, back, and spine injuries) and First Amendment violations (mailroom destruction/non-delivery of PC World magazines).
Case is screened by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A; evidentiary hearing conducted under Spears v. McCotter.
Court treats the case as Bivens against federal officers, and later determines the FBOP and Warden Edenfield are not proper defendants for such action.
Court dismisses all claims as frivolous, with prejudice, and notes the dismissal counts as a qualifying dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Judgment entered so that the action is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice as frivolous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sovereign immunity bars Bivens claims against FBOP.	Durham asserts constitutional violations by FBOP personnel.	FBOP/unit not subject to Bivens in official capacity.	Dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.
Whether Warden Edenfield can be held liable under supervisory liability theories.	Edenfield responsible for unconstitutional policies.	No personal involvement or policy causation shown.	Dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.
Whether plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim to medical needs.	Dentures and medical care were inadequate and disregard serious needs.	Plaintiff received some medical treatment; no deliberate indifference shown.	All Eighth Amendment claims dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.
Whether First Amendment substantive rights were violated by mail/ magazine delivery.	Delays/denial of PC World violated First Amendment rights.	Negligence not cognizable in a Bivens action; no named responsible party.	Dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

Gibson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 121 F. App’x 549 (5th Cir. 2004) (sovereign immunity bars official-capacity Bivens claims against FBOP)
Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (U.S. 2001) (limitations on Bivens against federal agencies/officials)
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1991) (personal-capacity liability required for supervisors)
Adames v. Perez, 331 F.3d 508 (5th Cir. 2003) (supervisor liability requires personal involvement or policy causation)
Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference standard; treatment decisions may negate liability)
Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2001) (disagreement with medical treatment not enough for deliberate indifference)
Marsh v. Jones, 53 F.3d 707 (5th Cir. 1995) (negligence not actionable under Bivens for First Amendment claims)
Vasquez v. Dretke, 226 F. App’x 338 (5th Cir. 2007) (lack of demonstrated serious medical need not shown by dentures case)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference standard for medical needs)
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1991) (standard for cruel and unusual punishment and prisoner safety)
Dean v. Gladney, 621 F.2d 1331 (5th Cir. 1980) (remedies under Bivens; not all claims actionable)
Affiliated Prof’l Hm Health Care Agency v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 1999) (personal involvement necessity in First Amendment claims)