Jackson v. Stewart, 7:22-cv-07476

Pro se plaintiff (incarcerated at FCI Allenwood) alleges a female nurse practitioner, A. Stewart, sexually assaulted him at FCI Otisville on or about December 30, 2021; he was transferred to FCI Allenwood on January 5, 2022.
At Allenwood he alleges denial of law library access, denial/impediment of the grievance program, and inadequate/nonnutritional food.
Plaintiff sued A. Stewart and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in the Southern District of New York and was granted in forma pauperis status.
The Court dismissed claims against the BOP based on sovereign immunity and explained FTCA procedures/venue for tort claims against the United States (exhaustion and proper district for Allenwood-related claims is Middle District of Pennsylvania).
The Court dismissed without prejudice Allenwood-based constitutional claims for improper venue, but granted leave to amend within 60 days to attempt to state a Bivens claim against Stewart, directing plaintiff to add factual detail and confirm Stewart’s employment status.
The Court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith (denying IFP for appeal) and warned that failure to timely amend would result in dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BOP may be sued for alleged constitutional or tort claims	Plaintiff named BOP as defendant for alleged harms	BOP (and the United States) is immune absent waiver	Dismissed BOP claims under sovereign immunity; BOP has not waived immunity
Whether an FTCA tort action against the U.S. is available and where it belongs	Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged assault and Allenwood conditions	FTCA requires administrative exhaustion and venue in district where claim arose or plaintiff domiciled	Court explained FTCA waiver/requirements and that Allenwood claims belong in Middle District of Pennsylvania; plaintiff must exhaust before suing
Whether Allenwood constitutional claims may proceed in SDNY	Plaintiff asserted Allenwood conditions in this SDNY filing	Events occurred in Pennsylvania; venue improper in SDNY	Allenwood constitutional claims dismissed without prejudice for improper venue; plaintiff may file in Middle District of Pennsylvania
Whether a Bivens damages remedy against Stewart is available	Plaintiff asserts constitutional violations (sexual assault) by Stewart and seeks damages	Defendants (implicitly) rely on limits on Bivens, congressional role, and FTCA exceptions (assaults by non-law-enforcement may be excluded)	Court permitted leave to amend: not foreclosed at this stage but cautioned Bivens expansion is disfavored; plaintiff must plead more facts and employment status of Stewart

United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596 (1990) (sovereign immunity principle that the United States is immune from suit except by waiver)
United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980) (suits against federal agencies are suits against the United States and subject to sovereign immunity)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 8)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts must separate legal conclusions from well-pleaded facts for plausibility review)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied damages remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officers)
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (expansion of Bivens is disfavored; courts must be cautious and consider whether Congress is better suited to create remedies)
Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793 (2022) (even parallel circumstances to prior Bivens cases are insufficient; courts must consider congressional role)
Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (recognized Bivens remedy for inadequate medical treatment of a convicted prisoner)
Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (recognized Bivens-type remedy for certain Fifth Amendment employment discrimination claims)
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (constitutional claims do not lie against federal agencies)