Cunningham v. EymanCunningham v. Eyman
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Moran
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MORAN, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff Bennie Cunningham originally filed a claim on May 15, 1995, alleging that his civil rights were violated by several unnamed deputy U.S. Marshals while he was a prisoner of the State of Illinois and that he was entitled to relief under
BACKGROUND
In considering a motion to dismiss under
On August 10, 1993, defendant Bennie Cunningham, an Illinois prison inmate in the custody of Illinois state correctional officers, was being temporarily housed in the U.S. Marshal’s lockup in the Dirksen Federal Building while waiting to testify as a witness in a fellow inmate’s civil rights trial. The marshals in custody of Cunningham were Marguerite Gabele, John O’Malley, Thomas Burke, Kevin O’Malley and William Herr. They placed Cunningham, who wore a zippered jumpsuit, in restraints which restricted his movement to the extent that he was unable to undress sufficiently to use the toilet. He remained in the jumpsuit and restraints from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on August 10, 1993. At somе point during the morning of August 10, Cunningham asked the marshals to remove his restraints so that he could use the toilet, but they refused. As a result, plaintiff was forced to urinate and defecate in his clothing.
ANALYSIS
A.Motion to Dismiss: Standards
In order to have a claim dismissed under
B. Introduction
Relying on
C. The Physical Injury Requirement of
When Cunningham filed his original claim on May 15,1995, the law at the time provided that prisoners whose federal constitutional rights were violated by state or federal officials had the right to recover for any resulting emotional or psychological injury sustained as a result, regardless of whether there was any accompanying physical injury. Cunningham properly filed his action, claiming only emotional and psychological injuries. Because he did not know the identities of the marshals present on the day of the incident, however, he did not name them as defendants in the original complaint. Rather, he addressed it to “John Doe U.S. Marshals.” On April 26, 1996, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 became effective. The Act eliminated recovery for emotional or psychological injury alone, and instead required plaintiffs to show a physical injury before recovering for these mental damages. On
Various courts have addressed the issue of whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and particularly portions of
Similarly, in
Weaver v. Clarke,
the court ruled that
At this point, however, it appears that no court has considered the retroactivity of
No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.
When a case implicates a federal statute (or amendments to a federal statute) that was enacted after the occurrence of the events giving rise to the suit, the court must first determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute’s proper reаch. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). If Congress has done so, there is no need to resort to judicial default rules. Id. However, if the statute contains no such express command, the court must “determine whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, i.e., whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. If the statute would operate retroactively, our traditional presumption teaches that it does not govern absent clear congressional intent favoring such a result.” Id. Courts thus generally refrain from applying new statutes that “affect[ ] substantive rights, liabilities or duties” to pending actions. Chow v. I.N.S., 113 F.3d 659, 665 (7th Cir.1997), citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 278, 114 S.Ct. 1483.
Although the language used by Congress in drafting this particular provision is not dispositive of the issue (in that the language is neither explicitly retrospective nor clearly prospective in nature), the Supreme Court’s analysis in
Landgraf
leads us to conclude that
Defendants argue, however, that even if the amendments to
There are several problems with this argument. First, defendants’ reasoning runs directly into the retroactivity problem addressed above, a problem which neither party addresses. Defendants take the positiоn that if Cunningham’ third amended complaint does not relate back to the date of his original filing, the case against the now named individually named marshals would be governed by the amended § 1997(e), which includes the physical injury requirement. Although the marshals do not say so explicitly, they presumably base this argument on the long-standing tenet of statutory construction, which holds that “a court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision.” Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 711, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974). This principle, however, appears to conflict with the widely held conviction that “[rjetroactivity is not favored in the law,” and the resulting rule that “congressional enactments and administrative rales will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result,” Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988), and it is this dichotomy that the Supreme Court in Landgraf set out to reconcile. As discussed above, the Landgraf analysis leads us to conclude that because application of the 1996 amendments would bar Cunningham from exercising the right he held at the time of his injury (to recover for emotional injury without accompanying physical damage), the statute would have a retroactive effect which we would only apply if the statute contained a specific instruction from Congress to do so.
Moreover, the relation-back issue is not as clear as defendants’ arguments suggest. Under Rule 15(c)(3) an “amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted if’ the claim asserted against the new party arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth” in the original pleading, and
within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for service of the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment (A) has received such notice оf the institution of the action that the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (B) knew of should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party-
In this ease, the claim against the individual marshals in Cunningham’s third amended complaint on February 5, 1997, clearly arises from the same transaction or occurrence described in his first complaint. The dates, however, would have to be thoroughly reviewed to determine by what point the individual marshals must have received notiсe of the suit. Cunningham’s cause of action accrued on August 10,1993, the day the alleged civil rights violation occurred. The statute of limitations on that action is two years. Cunningham filed suit on May 15, 1995, several months within the limitations period. On January 8, 1997, the court tolled the statute of limitations until a reasonable time after the marshals provided the information needed for Cunningham to discover the names of the marshals рresent at the incident and name them in an amended complaint. Cunningham v. Correctional Officer Curry, No. 95 C 2900, 1997 WL 11232, January 8, 1997. He filed his third amended complaint, naming the individual defendants on February 5, 1997, well after the statutory limitations period had run but within the extended term designated by the court.
Defendants argue that the amended complaint cannot relate back under the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in
Sassi v. Breier,
584 F.2d
Defendants next argue that the amended complaint does not relate back to the date of the original filing because plaintiff was never “mistaken” about the identity of the U.S. marshals, as the text of
It is true, of course, that Cunningham, like the plaintiff in
Worthington,
was not “mistaken” about the marshals’ identities in the strictest sense of the term. However,
Wor-thington
is distinguishable from the instant сase for several reasons. In
Worthington,
the court considered the relation-back doctrine and
The above reasoning leads us to conclude that Cunningham’s amended complaint probably does relate back. Even so, under
Land-graf
any application of
D. Sovereign Immunity for Federal Officers in “Official-Capacity” Suits
Defendants also arg-ue that Cunningham’s claims against them in their official capacities lacks subject mаtter jurisdiction under the sovereign immunity doctrine and consequently must be dismissed. Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity the United States is generally immune from suits both at law and in equity unless it expressly waives such immunity and consents to be sued. See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 103 S.Ct. 2961, 77 L.Ed.2d 680 (1983). Consent is thus a prerequisite for jurisdiction over the United States as a party. Id.
It is true, as Cunningham asserts, that in
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
the Supreme Court permitted lawsuits against federal officers for constitutional violations, even though no statute specifically conferred such a right. 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Keeping-in conformity with the law of sovereign immunity, however, such suits may be brought against federal officers only in their individual capacities, unless the plaintiff can establish that the United States has consented to the suit. In this ease, Cunningham is unable to point to any evidence indicating that the United States has сonsented to be sued, except perhaps insofar as the Federal Tort Claims Act might apply.
See
1. The Individual-Capacity Claims and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The marshаls also argue that Cunningham’s claim against them in their individual capacities is barred because Cunningham failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing suit in federal court. The administrative exhaustion requirement is another section enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Thus, we are again faced with the issue of whether subsection (a) applies to a case that was already pending at the time the Act became effective. We hold that it does not.
As mentioned above, in
Wright v. Morris
the Sixth Circuit considered the issue of whether
(a) Applicability of Administrative remedies. No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions undersection 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
[a] new rule concerning the filing оf complaints would not govern an action in which the complaint had already been properly filed under the old regime, and the promulgation of a new rule of evidence would notrequire an appellate remand for a new trial.
511 U.S. at 275 n. 29, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (1994). We agree with the Sixth Circuit’s analysis and conclude that the administrative exhaustion requirement should not be applied to Cunningham’s claim. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss on that ground is likewise denied. 1
CONCLUSION
For the reasоns stated above, we grant defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the official-capacity claim but deny it with respects to the individual-capacity claims.
Notes
. While this case survives the statutory changes, we recognize that the potential damages are rather limited. It is unfortunate, especially in those circumstances, that it has generated so many legal issues and even more briefs. We hope this matter can be brought to an expeditious conclusion.