Thomas v. United States
779 F. Supp. 2d 154
D.D.C.2011Background
- Thomas, a 76-year-old diabetic prisoner at FCC Terre Haute, sues the United States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and Harrell Watts for alleged Eighth Amendment violations regarding medical care.
- Plaintiff asserts a long-standing custom or usage by the United States caused inadequate treatment and delays.
- Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), (2), (4), (5), and (6).
- The court grants in part: damages claims against the United States, BOP, and Watts in official capacity are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Watts’ individual-capacity claim is dismissed for lack of personal involvement, and injunctive/declaratory claims may be transferred to the Southern District of Indiana; further grounds for dismissal regarding service are not addressed at this stage.
- The court notes plaintiff proceeded in forma pauperis and may need further process-related consideration on service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the damages claims against the United States, BOP, and Watts in official capacity are barred by sovereign immunity. | Thomas contends constitutional injuries against the U.S. entities are actionable. | Defendants argue FTCA does not waive constitutional claims and sovereign immunity bars official-capacity damages. | Damages claims dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Whether Watts is personally liable in a Bivens action for alleged medical-care violations. | Watts personally participated in the denial/administrative decisions. | Liability cannot be based on respondeat superior; personal involvement is required. | Watts’ individual-capacity claim dismissed for lack of personal involvement. |
| Whether the remaining injunctive/declaratory relief claims should be transferred to the proper venue. | Plaintiff seeks ongoing relief for conditions at Terre Haute. | Appropriate relief should be addressed in the district where the action properly lies; venue considerations apply. | Court transfers remaining injunctive/declaratory claims to the Southern District of Indiana, after allowing an opportunity to respond. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (official-capacity claims treated as against the United States)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (sovereign immunity requires express consent to be sued)
- United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (1992) (consent to sue must be unequivocally expressed)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (FTCA does not waive constitutional tort claims)
- Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (Bivens actions require personal involvement; no vicarious liability)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (a government-official liability standard with no respondeat superior support)
- Gonzalez v. Holder, 763 F. Supp. 2d 145 (2011) (prison official’s grievance decision does not render personal liability under Bivens)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs constitutes Eighth Amendment violation)
- Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918 (1974) (factors for § 1404(a) transfer analysis)