Self v. United States
20-10388
| 5th Cir. | Feb 21, 2022Background
- Pro se federal prisoner Eugene Self sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging medical malpractice for delayed/improper eye care while in federal custody (events in Indiana and Texas).
- The Government moved for summary judgment arguing Self failed to designate an expert to support the malpractice claims.
- Self filed an untimely response asking the court to appoint an expert under Fed. R. Evid. 706, appoint counsel, and grant a jury trial; he also suggested his pleadings should be liberally construed and that his claim could be Bivens-based.
- The district court denied Self’s motions, concluded state law governed FTCA medical-malpractice claims and required expert proof, granted the Government’s summary judgment motion, and dismissed the complaint.
- Self appealed pro se, arguing error in the summary-judgment ruling, denial of an appointed expert, judicial bias, and that the complaint should have been treated as a Bivens claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper for failure to present expert testimony | Self: court should liberally construe pleadings; pro se status should relax evidentiary requirements | Gov: state-law malpractice claims require expert proof; Self offered none | Summary judgment affirmed: expert testimony required and absent, so no genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether pro se status excuses the expert-evidence requirement or different treatment | Self: as a pro se litigant, he should not be held to attorney standards or forced to produce an expert | Gov: pro se status does not relieve the burden to present evidence supporting claims | Rejected: pro se status does not excuse the requirement to present expert evidence |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying appointment of an expert under Fed. R. Evid. 706 | Self: requested court-appointed expert to establish malpractice | Gov: appointment unnecessary; dispositive lack of plaintiff expert and evidence | No abuse of discretion: court properly denied Rule 706 appointment |
| Whether the complaint should have been recharacterized as a Bivens claim and whether judicial bias existed | Self: complaint could/should be read as a constitutional Bivens action; district court was biased | Gov: complaint pleaded FTCA malpractice; record doesn't support bias or Bivens intent | Court did not recharacterize as Bivens and found no basis for judicial-bias claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Hannah v. United States, 523 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2008) (FTCA medical-malpractice claims governed by state law and require expert proof)
- Nickell v. Beau View of Biloxi, L.L.C., 636 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2011) (summary-judgment standard and de novo review)
- Duffie v. United States, 600 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 2010) (movant’s burden and shifting burden to nonmovant at summary judgment)
- Outley v. Luke & Assocs., Inc., 840 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2016) (pro se status does not excuse meeting evidentiary burdens)
- Hood v. Phillips, 554 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. 1977) (Texas requires expert testimony for medical malpractice except where treatment is within common knowledge)
- Lusk v. Swanson, 753 N.E.2d 748 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (Indiana requires expert testimony for complex medical diagnosis/treatment claims)
- Scroggins, 485 F.3d 824 (5th Cir. 2007) (judicial-bias claim requires extrajudicial source or extreme antagonism)
- Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 2016) (courts need not permit futile amendments)