Rivera v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons
368 F. Supp. 3d 741
S.D. Ill.2019Background
- Rivera, a pro se detainee at MCC, sued the BOP, nurse Tunesia Mitchell, and unnamed medical staff alleging improper medical treatment that caused him to fall and injure his face.
- He asserts claims under Bivens, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), and the Rehabilitation Act based on: placement on a methadone detox program, administration/prescription of Clonidine (possibly interacting with Buspirone), receipt of another inmate’s medication, and Mitchell ordering him to stand despite dizziness.
- Magistrate Judge Freeman recommended dismissing Rivera’s Bivens and Rehabilitation Act claims, dismissing FTCA claims against Mitchell, but allowing several FTCA claims against the BOP to proceed (detox placement, Clonidine prescription, wrong-medication, and the order to stand); recommended substituting the United States for the BOP.
- The district court adopted most of the Report: it dismissed Bivens claims (sovereign immunity and PHSA immunity for PHS employees), dismissed Rehabilitation Act claim, dismissed FTCA claims as to Mitchell, and substituted the United States as defendant for the surviving FTCA claims.
- The court declined to sua sponte dismiss claims against John Doe defendants and therefore did not adopt the Magistrate’s recommendation to dismiss those at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viability of Bivens claims against BOP and Mitchell | Rivera asserts constitutional medical mistreatment actionable under Bivens | BOP and Mitchell: sovereign immunity bars suits against the U.S.; PHSA grants immunity to PHS medical personnel | Court: Dismissed Bivens claims against BOP and Mitchell (sovereign immunity; PHSA immunity for Mitchell) |
| FTCA defendant and scope of FTCA claims | Rivera seeks FTCA relief for detox placement, Clonidine prescription, receiving another inmate’s med, being ordered to stand, and inadequate post‑fall treatment | Defendants: FTCA only against U.S.; some claimed acts are not properly pleaded or unexhausted; some claims are malpractice vs. negligence distinctions | Court: Substituted U.S. for BOP; dismissed FTCA claim re: inadequate facial treatment; allowed FTCA claims to proceed re: detox program, Clonidine prescription, receipt of another inmate’s medication, and Mitchell’s order to stand |
| Claim that Clonidine (and its interaction with Buspirone) caused fall | Rivera alleges Clonidine was prescribed/administered without consent and interacted with Buspirone causing dizziness → fall | Defendants: side effects alone do not show malpractice; plaintiff fails to plausibly show foreseeable risk of falling from that prescription | Court: Found Rivera plausibly alleged malpractice and causation (interaction could cause dizziness/lightheadedness and fall); claim survives motion to dismiss |
| Rehabilitation Act claim based on denial of methadone | Rivera: addiction is a disability and denial of adequate methadone is discriminatory denial of services | Defendants: denial is related to the disability (addiction) and therefore not covered as unrelated discrimination or failure to accommodate | Court: Dismissed Rehabilitation Act claim — addiction is directly related to the services complained of, so Rehab Act does not provide relief here |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (establishes implied damages remedy for certain constitutional violations)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (courts should not extend Bivens to new contexts; expansion is disfavored)
- Hui v. Castaneda, 559 U.S. 799 (2010) (PHSA provides immunity for PHS officers/employees for medical functions)
- Lombard v. Booz-Allen Hamilton, Inc., 280 F.3d 209 (2d Cir. 2002) (elements of negligence under New York law)
- United States v. Univ. Hosp., 729 F.2d 144 (2d Cir. 1984) (analysis of Rehabilitation Act scope and when disability is related to services)