Jeremy Pinson v. Unknown Party
698 F. App'x 445
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jeremy V. Pinson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, sued under Bivens and the Privacy Act alleging defendants disclosed that she was an informant and were deliberately indifferent to her safety.
- District court granted summary judgment dismissing the deliberate-indifference claim, reasoning the disclosure identified Pinson as an informant only to inmates at a different facility and was not the cause of the assault.
- The district court dismissed the Bivens claims against the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) as an improper Bivens defendant.
- Pinson presented evidence that the disclosure motivated attacks and threats she suffered, creating a factual dispute over causation and defendants’ state of mind.
- The district court did not address Pinson’s Privacy Act claim that the BOP improperly disclosed her records; the agency is the proper defendant for Privacy Act claims.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment on the deliberate-indifference claim and remanded for further proceedings, and directed the district court to consider the Privacy Act claim against the BOP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants were deliberately indifferent by identifying Pinson as an informant | Identification exposed Pinson to foreseeable violence and defendants’ conduct proximately caused attacks | Identification was to inmates at a different facility and did not cause the attack; no deliberate indifference | Reversed — triable dispute exists whether disclosure was deliberate indifference and causally related to harm |
| Whether BOP is a proper Bivens defendant | Plaintiff sued BOP in Bivens action | BOP argued an agency cannot be sued under Bivens | Affirmed — BOP is not a proper Bivens defendant |
| Whether the Privacy Act claim against BOP was adjudicated | Pinson argued BOP improperly disclosed her records in violation of the Privacy Act | District court did not adjudicate the Privacy Act claim; BOP previously argued as inapplicable | Remanded — district court must consider Pinson’s Privacy Act claim against BOP |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate overall | Pinson argued evidence creates genuine issues of material fact | Defendants moved for summary judgment on absence of causation and intent | Reversed in part — summary judgment improper on deliberate-indifference claim; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizing limited implied damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989) (labeling a prisoner a "snitch" can violate right to protection from violence)
- Lemire v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2013) (deliberate-indifference plaintiffs must show actual and proximate causation)
- Schowengert v. General Dynamics Corp., 823 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1987) (agency is the proper defendant for Privacy Act claims)