Hutchinson v. United States
3:23-cv-06178
| D.S.C. | Mar 17, 2025Background
- Plaintiff George Baldwin Hutchinson, a retired Army veteran, visited Fort Jackson and alleges he was subjected to unprofessional, discriminatory conduct by staff and was constructively arrested by Military Police.
- Hutchinson filed an administrative claim seeking $2.5 million for emotional distress, false arrest, and related torts, which the Army denied in May 2023.
- The Army’s denial letter informed Hutchinson he must file any federal suit under the FTCA within six months.
- Hutchinson filed this federal action on December 1, 2023—six months and six days after the denial letter—asserting claims under Bivens and the FTCA.
- Defendants sought dismissal, arguing sovereign immunity, lack of standing, and statute of limitations.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal; Hutchinson's objections and sur-reply did not alter this recommendation, and the District Court addressed and rejected those objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for Bivens Declaratory/Injunctive Relief | Hutchinson alleged ongoing harm and referenced individual officers as responsible; claimed PTSD is ongoing injury | Defendants argued no ongoing adverse effects alleged; sovereign immunity bars claims vs. U.S. | Hutchinson lacks standing—no continuing adverse effects pled, sovereign immunity applies |
| Statute of Limitations for FTCA Claim | Filing was timely because it was postmarked within six months; seeks equitable tolling due to PTSD and COVID-related mail delays | Suit filed after the six-month limit; mailbox rule doesn’t apply; no extraordinary equitable grounds | FTCA claim barred—complaint untimely; equitable tolling not justified |
| Sur-Reply on Motion to Dismiss | Sought leave to file a sur-reply | No opposition noted | Granted |
| Summary Judgment by Plaintiff | Hutchinson sought partial summary judgment | Moot if dismissal granted | Moot, as case dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (scope of district court review of magistrate's recommendation)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizing constitutional tort claims against federal officers)
- Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44 (standard for reviewing magistrate’s findings)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (standard for reviewing absence of timely objection to R&R)
- Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666 (standing for injunctive relief requires ongoing injury)
- Thompson v. E.I. DuPoint de Nemours & Co., 76 F.3d 530 (mailbox rule does not extend to non-prisoner litigants)
- Rouse v. Lee, 339 F.3d 238 (scope of equitable tolling for untimely filings)
- Irwin v. Dep’t of Veteran Affs., 498 U.S. 89 (equitable tolling limited to exceptional cases)
- O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (past injury alone does not create standing for injunctive relief)