Ronald Greenland v. United States
661 F. App'x 210
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Greenland was arrested in Nov 2009 the week before a scheduled hernia repair; while detained at BOP contract facilities (MDC and MVCC operated by Geo) he sought surgery repeatedly and did not receive corrective surgery until Feb 2013.
- He sued the United States (FTCA), Geo and individual defendants (Benson, warden, medical administrators) alleging inadequate care, negligence, and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference; he sought Bivens relief against Benson and § 1983 claims against others.
- A Magistrate Judge allowed amendment of the FTCA claim but recommended dismissal of other claims; Greenland filed an amended complaint and objections; service was made only on the United States and Benson.
- The United States and Benson moved to dismiss (or for summary judgment), arguing sovereign immunity/independent-contractor FTCA exception, failure to exhaust, lack of Benson’s personal involvement, and qualified immunity.
- The Magistrate Judge and District Court adopted reports recommending dismissal; the Third Circuit vacated the dismissal, finding procedural irregularities, and held the complaint plausibly pleaded FTCA and Eighth Amendment claims warranting further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTCA liability for medical care at BOP contract facilities | Geo’s operation was sufficiently controlled by BOP; United States is liable under FTCA | United States immune under FTCA because Geo is an independent contractor | Vacated dismissal — complaint alleged facts (BOP oversight) precluding dismissal on independent-contractor ground without further factfinding |
| Bivens claim vs Benson (BOP employee) | Benson had supervisory/oversight authority and could override medical decisions; liable for deliberate indifference | Benson lacked personal involvement and is protected by qualified immunity | Vacated dismissal — allegations could support Bivens claim; dismissal premature given alleged oversight role and facts to be developed |
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference / serious medical need | Hernia diagnosed as requiring surgery; delay caused pain and complications; refusal of proper care amounts to deliberate indifference | Treatment disagreements/negotiations do not amount to Eighth Amendment violation; mere negligence is insufficient | Vacated dismissal — complaint plausibly alleged a serious need and deliberate indifference, not just negligence |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies and other defenses | Greenland alleged he exhausted remedies | Government argued failure to exhaust and mootness (removal) | Not grounds to affirm dismissal at pleading stage; exhaustion and mootness may be addressed on summary judgment with evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (establishes implied damages remedy against federal officials for constitutional violations)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for medical care)
- Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326 (3d Cir. 1987) (defines serious medical need and deliberate indifference tests)
- Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521 (examines FTCA independent-contractor distinction and role of contract/supervision)
- Norman v. United States, 111 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 1997) (independent-contractor exemption under FTCA; focus on government control over day-to-day work)
- Durmer v. O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64 (3d Cir. 1993) (supervisory liability limits where medical staff provide care)