Mullen v. Bureau of Prisons
843 F. Supp. 2d 112
D.D.C.2012Background
- Plaintiff Louis Mullen, a prisoner at FCI Ray Brook, sues the BOP and wardens under Bivens for alleged deliberate indifference to two hernias, seeking $250,000 and declaratory relief.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient service, and failure to state a claim.
- Medical history shows prior hernia repairs (Sep 22, 2008 at USP Big Sandy) and subsequent recurrence; a March 27, 2009 surgeon’s recommendation for repair; transfer to Allenwood (May 28, 2009); and URC denial of elective surgery in mid-2009.
- Allenwood staff noted on Oct 5, 2009 two easily reducible incisional hernias with no current indication for surgery.
- Plaintiff alleges that a May 28, 2009 transfer prevented the elective repair that would have occurred otherwise; suit was filed Sept 16, 2010.
- The court grants the defendants’ motion and dismisses the damages claim under 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(3); dismissal is without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does sovereign immunity bar the Bivens damages claim? | Mullen contends Bivens provides a remedy against federal actors for deliberate indifference. | The United States has not consented to suit for monetary damages or to a Bivens action against federal agencies or officers in these circumstances. | Yes; dismissal granted under 12(b)(1). |
| Is there personal jurisdiction over Holt and Ebbert for individual-capacity claims? | Jurisdiction exists due to contacts with the District or actions affecting the plaintiff. | Holt and Ebbert lack contacts in the District; no long-arm basis. | Yes; dismissal granted for lack of personal jurisdiction. |
| Is venue proper for the Bivens claim in this District? | Venue should be proper where the plaintiff resides or where events occurred. | Events occurred in Pennsylvania; venue improper here. | Yes; dismissal granted for improper venue. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (sovereign immunity requires consent to sue the United States)
- United States v. Nordic Vill., Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1992) (sovereign immunity waiver must be unequivocally expressed)
- Orff v. United States, 545 U.S. 596 (U.S. 2005) (strict construction of sovereign-immunity waivers)
- Jackson v. Bush, 448 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D.D.C. 2006) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction in Rule 12(b)(1) motion)
- Tri-State Hosp. Supply Corp. v. United States, 341 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (limits on jurisdictional doctrine in sovereign-immunity context)
- Settles v. United States Parole Comm'n, 429 F.3d 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (Bivens actions and private-rights considerations in D.C. Cir.)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1994) (no monetary damages against federal agencies absent waiver)
- Majhor v. Kempthorne, 518 F. Supp. 2d 221 (D.D.C. 2007) (various statutes do not waive sovereign immunity for Bivens actions)