Gonzalez v. Holder
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12005
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Gonzalez, a federal inmate, sues over alleged denial and delay of surgical repair for a hernia first injured in 2002 at FCI Bastrop, Texas.
- Diagnosed with a growing hernia in July 2008; claims repeated failures to provide needed medical treatment despite requests and grievances.
- Plaintiff asserts Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference by multiple defendants, including Warden Maye, Dr. McLaughlin, and Schappaugh, in various capacities.
- Count V targets Dr. Benjamin and Schappaugh for alleged medical care denial; Count IV asserts APA challenge to agency regulations; Count VI seeks mandamus relief for medical care.
- Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss, and transfers the case to the Western District of Texas due to improper venue.
- Venue is improper in DC; the court transfers the action to the Western District of Texas where defendants and events are centered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether official-capacity claims are barred by sovereign immunity | Gonzalez argues against official-capacity claims; seeks relief under Bivens. | Defendants contend official-capacity claims are essentially against the United States and barred by sovereign immunity. | Official-capacity claims dismissed |
| Whether McLaughlin, Maye, and Schappaugh lack jurisdiction or service | Plaintiff asserts service should be excused given inmate status and lack of access. | Insufficient process/service deprives court of personal jurisdiction. | Denied without prejudice; service to be perfected |
| Whether Maye may be liable in a Bivens claim | Maye's denial/response to grievances constitutes personal involvement. | Supervisory liability absent under Bivens; no personal involvement shown. | Dismissed; no personal involvement shown |
| Whether Schappaugh is immune under § 233(a) for Bivens claim | Schappaugh as PHS officer is liable for denial of care under Bivens. | § 233(a) provides exclusive remedy against United States for such acts. | Dismissed; Bivens claims precluded by § 233(a) |
| Whether APA claim survives and whether program statements are subject to APA | Requests new regulations; seeks guidance for inmate healthcare access under APA. | APA does not apply to interpretive internal program statements; claims fail. | APA claim dismissed; program statements treated as non-substantive |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (sets framework for official-capacity claims and sovereign immunity)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (consent to sue the United States requires explicit waiver)
- Nordic Village, Inc. v. City of Winter Park, 503 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1992) (sovereign immunity requires unequivocal consent to sue the government)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1994) (constitutional tort claims are not waived by FTCA)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (rejection of respondeat superior in Bivens; requires specific allegations)
- Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (supervisory liability requires personal involvement; no respondeat superior)
- Hui v. Castaneda, 130 S. Ct. 1845 (U.S. 2010) (§ 233(a) exclusive remedy against United States for certain federal officers)
- Parsons v. Pitzer, 149 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 1998) (internal program statements not substantive rules subject to APA)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (supervisory liability under § 1983 cannot be based on respondeat superior)