Gregory Carter v. United States
694 F. App'x 918
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Gregory Carter, a federal inmate at FCI Beckley, alleged two falls on May 3, 2014 after his cell flooded; he claimed resulting ankle, back, and neck injuries and emotional distress caused by prison staff negligence.
- Carter had preexisting ankle, neck, and back conditions but asserted his ankle was improving before May 3; post-incident records showed complaints of pain, an MRI revealing tenosynovitis, steroid injection, and possible future surgery.
- Carter sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) seeking damages for physical injury and emotional distress.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(2) (PLRA amendment) to argue that an inmate cannot recover for mental or emotional injury without a prior showing of physical injury, which the government construed to require more-than-de minimis physical harm.
- The magistrate judge and district court reviewed medical records, found any aggravation was de minimis, applied § 1346(b)(2) to dismiss the entire suit, and the district court adopted the recommendation.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court erred by (1) applying § 1346(b)(2) (which limits emotional-injury claims) to Carter’s separate physical-injury claim under § 1346(b)(1); and (2) resolving fact disputes central to causation and damages on a jurisdictional dismissal rather than presuming Carter’s allegations where facts were intertwined with the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1346(b)(2) bars Carter’s FTCA suit absent a more-than-de-minimis physical injury | Carter: § 1346(b)(2)’s ‘‘physical injury’’ text permits even de minimis physical injury; his records show sufficient injury | Govt: § 1346(b)(2) (like §1997e(e)) requires a more-than-de-minimis physical injury to permit emotional-injury claims; records show no significant change post-falls | Court did not decide the de minimis question; instead: §1346(b)(2) applies only to emotional-injury claims, not physical-injury claims under §1346(b)(1) (vacated dismissal on this ground) |
| Whether district court properly applied § 1346(b)(2) to dismiss Carter’s distinct physical-injury claim | Carter: physical-injury claim proceeds under §1346(b)(1) and was improperly dismissed under §1346(b)(2) | Govt: relied on §1346(b)(2) to attack jurisdiction for entire suit | Held: Error — §1346(b)(2) applies only to mental/emotional claims; Carter’s physical-injury claim survives at least for jurisdictional purposes under §1346(b)(1) |
| Whether district court could resolve factual disputes about causation/severity on Rule 12(b)(1) motion | Carter: factual disputes about causation/severity are intertwined with merits; must be presumed true or resolved after discovery/trial | Govt: may submit evidence to challenge jurisdictional allegations and have court decide factual jurisdictional questions | Held: Where jurisdictional facts are inextricably intertwined with merits (causation/damages), court should assume jurisdiction and not resolve those disputes on 12(b)(1); dismissal was improper |
| Proper procedural course on remand | Carter: merits proceedings (discovery/trial) needed to resolve intertwined facts; emotional-injury claim should proceed only after merits resolution | Govt: had urged dismissal on records review | Held: VACATED and REMANDED to allow the district court to proceed on merits consistent with opinion (assume jurisdiction over emotional-injury claim pending resolution of intertwined facts; physical-injury claim proceeds under §1346(b)(1)) |
Key Cases Cited
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (FTCA waives government immunity for certain torts)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (distinguishing jurisdictional requirements from merits elements)
- Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187 (4th Cir.) (when facts are intertwined with merits, court should assume jurisdiction)
- Rich v. United States, 811 F.3d 140 (4th Cir.) (presumption of truthfulness where jurisdictional facts overlap merits in FTCA case)
- Durden v. United States, 736 F.3d 296 (4th Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(1) standards and FTCA jurisdiction)
- Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337 (4th Cir.) (distinguishing jurisdictional factfinding separable from merits)
- In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig., 744 F.3d 326 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for 12(b)(1) dismissal)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (PLRA context)
- McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391 (4th Cir.) (discussing PLRA’s impact on prisoner suits)
- Brooks v. Warden, 800 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir.) (construing §1997e(e) to require more-than-de-minimis physical injury for emotional- injury recovery)