Robert F. Dugan v. Warden, FCC Coleman - USP I
673 F. App'x 940
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Robert Dugan, a pro se federal prisoner, sued BOP officials and the United States alleging Eighth Amendment violations for denial/delay of dental care and deprivation of personal hygiene supplies, and sought FTCA damages.
- District court dismissed FTCA claim for lack of jurisdiction under the discretionary function exception and dismissed other FTCA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- District court granted summary judgment for individual defendants (Bivens claims) on deliberate-indifference to serious dental needs and on conditions-of-confinement claim about sanitation/hygiene, finding reliance on dentist assessments and BOP procedures.
- Dugan sought discovery, appointment of counsel, and appointment of expert witnesses; the district court denied or limited these requests and the appeals court reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Eleventh Circuit affirmed: discretionary function exception applies; Dugan failed to exhaust some FTCA claims; summary judgment proper on Bivens claims; discovery and appointment denials were not abused.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FTCA claim re: hygiene during lockdown is barred by discretionary function exception | BOP negligently failed to provide hygiene supplies/showers during 9-day lockdown | Decisions about providing showers/supplies during lockdown involve judgment grounded in public policy and BOP discretion | Discretionary function exception applies; FTCA claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Dugan exhausted administrative remedies for FTCA claims (ongoing hygiene deprivation; dental delay) | He filed grievances and later a tort claim form | He didn’t submit appropriate tort claims for all asserted harms; monetary damages require separate FTCA claim form | Dugan failed to exhaust administrative remedies for those FTCA claims; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether prison officials were deliberately indifferent to serious dental needs (Bivens) | Delay in repairing fillings caused pain and injury; officials failed to provide prompt care | Dental staff saw and treated Dugan multiple times; administrators relied on dentist and followed BOP policy; no intentional denial or grossly inadequate care | Summary judgment for defendants affirmed; no subjective deliberate indifference shown |
| Whether conditions-of-confinement (denial of soap, cleaners, showers) violated Eighth Amendment | Repeated refusals and lockdown deprivation caused infections/health risks | Records show medical treatment when sought; no evidence of serious risk or that defendants acted with deliberate indifference | Summary judgment for defendants affirmed; conditions did not rise to Eighth Amendment violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. United States, 151 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 1998) (two-step test for discretionary function exception)
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (regulatory discretion implies policy-based decisions for discretionary function analysis)
- Burchfield v. United States, 168 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 1999) (administrative exhaustion required for FTCA claims)
- Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2011) (elements of Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference standard and denial/delay of medical care)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (conditions-of-confinement must deny minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (no vicarious liability in Bivens/§1983; individual involvement required)