Love Brooks v. Bryan Bledsoe
682 F. App'x 164
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Love Altonio Brooks, a federal inmate at USP-Lewisburg, sued under Bivens and the FTCA alleging: theft/damage to property, denial of recreation, a "planned attack" in a recreation cage on May 13, 2011 (allegedly facilitated by Officer Kepner), denial/delay of medical care, and various conditions-of-confinement claims.
- Brooks amended his pro se complaint; the District Court dismissed some claims and allowed others to proceed to discovery.
- After cross-motions, the District Court granted judgment for defendants on most claims (Aug. 24, 2015); one retaliation claim was later settled.
- On appeal Brooks challenged: (1) application of the FTCA discretionary-function exception to the recreation-attack claims; (2) dismissal for failure to exhaust certain FTCA claims; (3) constitutionality of the BOP ban on nude/sexually explicit materials; and (4) dismissal of conditions-of-confinement and supervisory claims.
- The Third Circuit affirmed: it held the discretionary-function bar applied; some FTCA claims were unexhausted; the BOP publication bans were reasonable under Turner/Beard; and the conditions/supervisory claims failed (no Eighth Amendment violation, no personal involvement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FTCA claims arising from the May 13 recreation-cage attack are barred by the discretionary-function exception | Brooks contends BOP employee decisions (shuffle of recreation group) were negligent and actionable under FTCA | BOP argues decisions about inmate placement/security involve judgment and are protected by the discretionary-function exception | Court: discretionary-function exception applies; FTCA claims barred |
| Whether Brooks exhausted administrative remedies for certain FTCA claims (e.g., delay/improper medical response) | Brooks asserts he administratively raised medical/response claims on reconsideration | Government shows initial tort claim did not include these medical/response allegations; reconsideration either not properly exhausted or unanswered | Court: those FTCA claims were unexhausted and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether BOP ban on pictorial depictions of nudity and sexual written materials violates First Amendment | Brooks argues the bans unconstitutionally restrict receipt of publications | Defendants invoke prison security/rehabilitation and Ensign Amendment/Program Statement to justify bans | Court: Turner/Beard factors met; bans are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests; bans upheld |
| Whether conditions-of-confinement and supervisory Bivens claims state Eighth Amendment violations or personal involvement | Brooks claims supervisors knew of and allowed deplorable conditions (no sheets, ventilation, furniture, visitation limits) | Defendants contend alleged deprivations were not objectively serious; supervisors lacked personal involvement; official-capacity suits are against the U.S. | Court: claims fail — conditions do not meet Eighth Amendment threshold; supervisory liability not shown; official-capacity claims barred by sovereign immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing implied damages remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officers)
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (discretionary-function exception analysis framework)
- Mitchell v. United States, 225 F.3d 361 (3d Cir.) (articulating two-part test for discretionary-function exception)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (prison administrators afforded deference to preserve institutional security)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (prison regulation reasonableness test)
- Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (applying Turner factors to prison reading restrictions)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment objective/subjective standards for conditions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (no respondeat superior; need personal involvement for constitutional liability)
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (noting that restrictive or harsh conditions are part of imprisonment and not necessarily Eighth Amendment violations)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (administrative-exhaustion requirement is mandatory)
- Cohen v. United States, 151 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir.) (BOP discretion under §4042 supports discretionary-function protection)