298 F. Supp. 3d 174
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff William Henry Harrison, a federal inmate, sued BOP officials in their individual capacities alleging libel (false Sex Offender Public Safety Factor on his file), Privacy Act, APA, constitutional (Due Process, Equal Protection, First Amendment retaliation), and fraud claims arising from prison classification and delay in grievance processing.
- The Court previously dismissed most claims but left common-law libel claims against individual federal employees because the Westfall Act certification had not yet been filed.
- After the Attorney General filed a Westfall certification that the defendants acted within the scope of employment, the government moved to dismiss or substitute the United States as defendant.
- Harrison moved for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), arguing the Court overlooked FOIA, constitutional claims, and fraud allegations; he also sought summary judgment.
- The Court evaluated scope-of-employment under Virginia law, whether Harrison stated First Amendment retaliation, qualified immunity, sovereign-immunity waivers under the FTCA, and whether a FOIA claim was alleged or could be amended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of employment / Westfall certification & libel claims | Westfall inapplicable; defendants acted maliciously and outside their duties in falsifying records | Attorney General certified actions were within scope; substitute U.S.; sovereign immunity bars libel claims | Court found certification prima facie valid; defendants were acting within scope; libel claims dismissed and U.S. substituted; FTCA §2680(h) bars libel suit against U.S. |
| FOIA claim | Pro se status should allow construing complaint to include a FOIA request | No FOIA request was made; complaint framed under Privacy Act | Court: complaint does not reasonably plead FOIA; Harrison may seek leave to amend to allege a FOIA request (Request No. 2016-03486) |
| Due Process & Equal Protection | Classification and denial of transfer, plus record inaccuracies, violated Due Process and Equal Protection | No protected liberty interest in transfer/classification; claims are duplicative of retaliation theory | Due Process claim dismissed (no liberty interest); Equal Protection rejected as duplicative of First Amendment retaliation claim |
| First Amendment retaliation & qualified immunity | Filing grievances and prior litigation are protected; delays and maintaining PSF were retaliatory and causally linked | Defendants contend no constitutional right to transfer and assert qualified immunity | Court: Harrison plausibly alleged protected activity, adverse action sufficient to chill, and causation; right was clearly established in 2016; qualified immunity not resolved for summary judgment—defendants not entitled to it at motion-to-dismiss stage |
| Fraud / Fraud on the Court & FTCA sovereign immunity | Alleged fraud in recordkeeping and conspiracy; fraud on court alleged | Fraud claims arise from employment acts (recordkeeping) and counsel not implicated; FTCA excludes fraud; sovereign immunity bars these tort claims | Fraud-on-court claim inadequately pleaded; common-law fraud falls within scope -> U.S. substituted; FTCA/sovereign immunity bars fraud claims; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (Westfall Act immunity and substitution of the United States)
- Jacobs v. Vrobel, 724 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir.) (Westfall certification is prima facie evidence; plaintiff must raise material dispute)
- Stokes v. Cross, 327 F.3d 1210 (D.C. Cir.) (burden shift after Westfall certification)
- Wuterich v. Murtha, 562 F.3d 375 (D.C. Cir.) (FTCA exemption for libel/slander; choice-of-law/scope discussion)
- Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons, 286 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir.) (prisoners’ use of grievance process is First Amendment–protected; relevance to retaliation claims)
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (First Amendment retaliation context; pleading standards)
- Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (qualified immunity and recognizing First Amendment interests in prisoners’ grievances)
- Aref v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 242 (D.C. Cir.) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requiring more than conclusory allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard guidance)