Steven Jones v. United States
698 F. App'x 536
9th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Steven (Dean) Jones, a federal prisoner, sued under Bivens and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging unsafe/suitable housing and related harms.
- District court granted summary judgment to the United States on Jones’s FTCA negligence claim regarding housing conditions.
- District court denied Jones’s motion for partial summary judgment on FTCA claims about placement/retention in a Secure Housing Unit (SHU) because those claims were not presented in his administrative claim to the Bureau of Prisons.
- District court dismissed Jones’s Bivens claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA.
- Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo, affirmed in part (FTCA negligence and administrative-claim jurisdictional ruling), vacated in part (Bivens dismissal), and remanded for further proceedings on exhaustion in light of recent authority about retaliation making grievance processes unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the United States was negligent under the FTCA for providing unsuitable quarters | Jones argued Bureau failed to exercise reasonable care in providing suitable quarters | United States argued no genuine dispute that Bureau exercised reasonable care under applicable state-law negligence standards | Affirmed: summary judgment for United States (no genuine dispute of material fact) |
| Whether FTCA claims about SHU placement/retention are actionable where not presented administratively | Jones argued SHU-related FTCA claims should proceed | United States argued administrative claim requirement is jurisdictional and claims not administratively presented cannot be litigated | Affirmed: district court correctly denied partial summary judgment; claims not exhausted administratively barred |
| Whether Bivens claims were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust given alleged threat of retaliation | Jones argued retaliation made grievance process effectively unavailable and exhausted requirement should be excused | Defendants argued Jones failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the PLRA | Vacated and remanded: in light of McBride and Ross, threat of retaliation can render grievance process unavailable; further proceedings required on exhaustion question |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing implied damages remedy against federal officers)
- United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43 (FTCA liability measured by state-law standards)
- McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2015) (threat of retaliation can render grievance process effectively unavailable)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (administrative exhaustion mandatory but not required when grievance process is effectively unavailable)
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. en banc) (standard of review for exhaustion legal rulings)
- Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2000) (administrative claim requirement under FTCA is jurisdictional)
- Hayes v. County of San Diego, 305 P.3d 252 (Cal. 2013) (elements of negligence under California law)