Vargas v. Smith
3:18-cv-00496
| S.D. Ill. | Apr 4, 2018Background
- Plaintiff, a former federal inmate at FCI-Greenville, alleged he warned prison staff he faced threats from a group called the “Latin Folks.”
- On August 2, 2016 Plaintiff told Lieutenant Smith he would be assaulted if returned to general population; Smith released him anyway as threats were deemed unverified.
- On August 9, 2016 Plaintiff was assaulted by other inmates and suffered head trauma, headaches, dizziness, and blurred vision.
- Plaintiff alleges Lieutenant Smith failed to protect him (Eighth Amendment Bivens claim) and that the United States is liable under the FTCA for negligence; he also alleges unnamed medical staff were deliberately indifferent to his post‑assault medical needs.
- Court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- Court allowed: Count 1 (failure to protect against Lt. Smith) and Count 2 (FTCA negligence claim against the United States). Count 3 (medical deliberate indifference against unspecified staff) was dismissed without prejudice for failure to identify specific defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to protect (Eighth Amendment) | Smith knew of a specific threat and disregarded it, causing the assault | Smith contends threats were unverified and release was reasonable | Court: Plaintiff pleaded facts sufficient to proceed; deliberate indifference plausibly alleged |
| FTCA negligence (United States) | BOP employee negligence caused plaintiff's injures while acting within scope | U.S. defense not resolved at screening; merits to be litigated | Court: FTCA claim against United States permitted to proceed under Illinois law |
| Deliberate indifference to medical needs | Medical personnel failed to treat post‑assault injuries | Defendants not yet identified/served; no specific defense at screening | Court: Dismissed without prejudice for failure to name individual medical defendants |
| IFP screening under §1915(e)(2) | Complaint states viable Bivens and FTCA claims | Government could argue frivolous or insufficient; screening required | Court: IFP granted; claims survived preliminary §1915(e)(2) review except Count 3 |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of direct action for constitutional violation by federal agents)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (prison officials' duty to protect inmates; deliberate indifference standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolousness standard for IFP complaints)
- Pinkston v. Madry, 440 F.3d 879 (Seventh Circuit application of deliberate indifference in failure‑to‑protect claims)