Martinez v. United States
16-1022
| Fed. Cl. | Feb 16, 2017Background
- Martinez filed this action August 18, 2016, seeking a transfer for medical treatment at the GEO Group facility under contract with the BOP.
- He named four individual Correctional Center employees as responsible for alleged inadequate medical care and sought examination or transfer.
- Martinez attached internal facility grievances and responses; the facility denied an examination by a specialist, stating current treatment was appropriate.
- The Bureau of Prisons directed him to use facility grievance procedures; an administrative appeal to BOP was rejected as not appealable to the agency.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1).
- The court must determine whether the Tucker Act provides jurisdiction for Bivens/civil rights-like claims against federal officials and a transfer remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Tucker Act confer jurisdiction for Bivens/civil rights claims? | Martinez argues the court has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over constitutional claims. | Defendant contends Tucker Act provides jurisdiction only for money claims against the United States, not Bivens or stand-alone constitutional claims. | No jurisdiction under Tucker Act for Bivens/constitutional claims. |
| Can the court adjudicate claims against individual correctional employees? | Martinez asserts liability for alleged misconduct by specific staff. | Tucker Act lacks jurisdiction over suits against individual federal officers; such claims lie outside this court. | Court lacks jurisdiction over individual employee claims. |
| Is relief limited to money damages under Tucker Act; can equitable relief or transfer be ordered here? | Martinez seeks transfer for better treatment and medical care. | The Tucker Act does not authorize independent jurisdiction over equitable relief or non-monetary transfer relief. | No jurisdiction for equitable relief or transfer remedy. |
| Is civil rights jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proper in this court? | Martinez frames claim as civil rights violation by facility staff. | § 1983 claims are in district courts, not this court of federal claims. | § 1983 claims fall outside this court's jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Bivens actions lie outside the Court of Federal Claims' jurisdiction)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (need for a money-mandating source for jurisdiction under Tucker Act)
- Taylor v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 171 (2013) (court lacks jurisdiction over Bivens actions)
- Hardin v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 667 (2015) (stand-alone constitutional claims under Eighth/Due Process lack Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (no Tucker Act jurisdiction for certain constitutional claims)
- Chaib v. Geo Grp., Inc., 819 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 2016) (private contractor status of facility and government affiliation context)
- Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (burden on plaintiff to establish jurisdiction)