870 F. Supp. 2d 116
D.D.C.2012Background
- Scurlock, a pro se prisoner, sues the BOP and multiple officials for damages arising from alleged abuses at USP Lee, including assault, false imprisonment, and denial of medical and legal access.
- Alleged June 23, 2008 assault by Crowe at USP Lee involved rending his shoulder sling, handcuffing, and floor confinement; claims of ongoing coercive conduct and mistreatment through December 2008.
- Defendants include Crowe, Allred, Chamlee, Crowe, Norwood, O’Brien, Peliter, Pitts, Roff, Sloop, with Lappin in official capacity substituted by Samuels; Pitts later deemed deceased per defendants’ motion.
- Plaintiff contends the abuses were conducted under de facto BOP policies and customs, including false reports and inadequate training and supervision, causing emotional distress.
- Court grants in part a Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal of constitutional tort and conspiracy claims against the BOP and officials in their official capacities for lack of jurisdiction, and transfers remaining claims to the Western District of Virginia for improper venue and convenience; personal jurisdiction and venue issues predominate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction over constitutional tort claims | Scurlock argues federal sovereign power allows BOP/officials to be sued for constitutional harms | Defendants assert sovereign immunity bars BOP/official-capacity claims | Constitutional tort claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction over conspiracy claim | Scurlock asserts 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) conspiracy against United States | Section 1985(3) does not waive sovereign immunity | Conspiracy claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Personal jurisdiction over defendants in their individual capacities | Plaintiff alleges contacts through agency employment in DC | Contacts insufficient for personal jurisdiction in DC | Lack of personal jurisdiction; most individual defendants excluded except Lappin. |
| Venue for FTCA/related claims | Venue proper in DC under FTCA | Acts occurred in Virginia; plaintiff resides elsewhere | Venue improper in DC; transfer to Western District of Virginia appropriate |
| Court’s discretion to transfer | Transfer is not warranted; keep claims in DC | Transfer to proper venue serves justice | Transfer granted; remaining claims to Western District of Virginia |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (official-capacity suits treated as against the agency)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity requires consent to sue)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (sovereign immunity; consent prerequisite for jurisdiction)
- Akinseye v. District of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (Article III/waiver considerations for jurisdiction)
- Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (courts may review materials outside pleadings on jurisdiction)
- Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (jurisdictional fact review permitted; weigh affidavits)