453 F.Supp.3d 404
D.D.C.2020Background
- Plaintiff Isael Sanchez-Mercedes, a federal inmate, alleges that on May 6, 2014 at FCI Petersburg Officer Patterson confiscated his medically authorized cane; plaintiff fell, injuring his back and shoulder.
- Plaintiff sought medical care and filed a prison administrative grievance; he had knee surgery in July 2014 and was transferred subsequently to FCI Danbury and then FCI Loretto.
- In 2016 plaintiff (with counsel) sued in the District of Connecticut under the FTCA asserting the same cane-confiscation claim; that action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on the FTCA discretionary-function exception.
- In January 2019 plaintiff (pro se) sued the BOP, DOJ, Officer Patterson, and Warden Wilson seeking $50 million, asserting FTCA, Bivens, and § 1983 claims for the cane incident and for allegedly inadequate medical care.
- The Government moved to dismiss on multiple grounds (venue, personal jurisdiction, failure to exhaust/present administrative claims, statute of limitations); the Court dismissed the complaint in full and declined to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum for FTCA claims (venue/substitution) | Case may proceed in D.C.; plaintiff sued federal agencies and officials so FTCA claim asserted | FTCA venue limited to plaintiff’s residence or where act occurred; plaintiff didn’t name United States (but DOJ certified substitution) | D.C. is improper venue for FTCA; Court deemed FTCA claims against named non-U.S. parties dismissed and treated FTCA claims as against U.S., then dismissed for improper venue and refused to transfer |
| FTCA claim based on cane confiscation — preclusion/timeliness | Re-litigating is permitted; claims are timely | Prior D. Conn. action resolved the jurisdictional discretionary-function issue; FTCA claim likely untimely under § 2401(b) | Issue preclusion bars relitigation of the discretionary-function jurisdictional issue; FTCA claim for the cane incident also almost certainly time-barred |
| FTCA claims for ongoing inadequate medical care — presentment/exhaustion | Transfers impeded plaintiff’s ability to exhaust; he alleges ongoing injury and later filings | Plaintiff did not present medical-related tort claims to BOP since 2014; FTCA § 2675(a) presentment is jurisdictional and unmet | Plaintiff failed to satisfy FTCA presentment for medical-care claims; jurisdiction would be absent in any transferee court |
| Bivens claims against Patterson and Wilson — personal jurisdiction and timeliness | Federal defendants may be sued in D.C.; claims are timely as ongoing injury | No personal jurisdiction in D.C. over individual officers who acted in Virginia; Bivens claims accrued in 2014 and are time-barred under applicable state limitations | Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the individual federal defendants in D.C.; Bivens claims would be untimely if transferred, so dismissed rather than transferred |
| § 1983 claims | Plaintiff asserts Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference under § 1983 | § 1983 applies to state actors; BOP/DOJ are federal and sovereign immunity bars § 1983; federal officers not acting under color of state law | § 1983 claims dismissed: agencies immune and § 1983 does not reach federal officers acting under federal law |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognizes an implied damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Millbrook v. United States, 569 U.S. 50 (2013) (FTCA waives sovereign immunity for certain torts by federal employees)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standard for subject-matter jurisdiction allegations)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (FTCA bars suit until administrative remedies are exhausted)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (1962) (Congressional purpose behind § 1406(a) favoring transfer to cure venue defects)
- Sinclair v. Kleindienst, 711 F.2d 291 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (factors for transfer under § 1406(a) and consideration of statute-of-limitations when deciding transfer)
- NAHB v. EPA, 786 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (issue preclusion applies to jurisdictional determinations absent a curative change in facts)
- Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (caution against plaintiffs manufacturing venue in D.C.)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (FTCA and Bivens are parallel remedies at litigation outset)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§ 1983 reaches only state actors; federal officials acting under federal law are not covered)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))