Lewis v. United States Of America
2:19-cv-00079
S.D. Ga.Nov 24, 2020Background
- Plaintiff, a jailed individual proceeding in forma pauperis, sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Bivens for alleged deficient medical care and harassment related to a leg/foot ulcer.
- Defendants named include the United States and several federal employees: Allen, Bolaji, Forsyth, Martin, Mrs. Fanton, and Lieutenant Fanton (Deleon was removed from the caption).
- FTCA claims allege medical malpractice/negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress; Bivens claims allege Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and First Amendment retaliation; plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief.
- The Magistrate Judge conducted a screening review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and recommended dismissal of certain claims while allowing others to proceed.
- Recommendation: dismiss Bivens claims against defendants in their official capacities and dismiss FTCA claims against individual defendants (only the United States may be sued under the FTCA); deny preliminary injunctive relief; order service on specified remaining claims against the United States (FTCA) and specific officers (Bivens).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Bivens claims against federal officers in official capacities | Seeks monetary relief from officers for constitutional violations | Bivens does not create a cause of action against federal officers in their official capacities; sovereign immunity bars such relief | Dismiss official-capacity Bivens claims |
| Proper FTCA defendants | Sued United States and individual employees under FTCA for negligence/IIED | FTCA permits suit only against the United States, not individual employees | Dismiss FTCA claims against Allen, Bolaji, Forsyth, and Martin; FTCA claims against United States may proceed |
| Request for preliminary injunctive medical relief | Requests court-ordered medical treatment for leg/foot ulcers | Plaintiff has not shown likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, or public interest favoring injunction | Deny injunctive relief at this time |
| Bivens individual-capacity claims for deliberate indifference and retaliation | Alleges deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (ulcer, need for bottom bunk, confiscated supplies) and retaliation for grievances | Defendants implicitly contend allegations fail to show deliberate indifference or causation beyond negligence | Magistrate finds plausible claims to proceed: deliberate indifference against Allen, Bolaji, Forsyth, Martin; retaliation against Allen, Mrs. Fanton, Lieutenant Fanton |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized an implied damages remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officers)
- Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (Bivens does not authorize official-capacity damages claims against federal agencies)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: allegations must plausibly state a claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standard)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (pro se status does not excuse procedural rules)
- Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2003) (deliberate indifference requires objective serious medical need and subjective knowledge)
- Youmans v. Gagnon, 626 F.3d 557 (11th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff must show causation between alleged indifference and injury)
- Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528 (11th Cir. 2002) (frivolous claim definition under § 1915)