Henny v. United States

Background

Kimberly Ann Henny and Alessandra Katie Stamps filed separate lawsuits challenging substantially the same conditions at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota. The opinion states that Henny no longer resides there and that Stamps remains incarcerated there. After reviewing the cases before service under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the court dismissed all claims except Federal Tort Claims Act claims against the United States alleging negligent exposure to synthetic cannabinoid smoke.

The government moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court did not reach the alternative requests because it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction. Stamps separately filed a self-styled motion for summary judgment.

Analysis

The Federal Tort Claims Act provides a limited waiver of the federal government’s usual immunity from suit for certain torts committed by federal employees. But the Act preserves immunity for claims based on a federal agency’s or employee’s discretionary functions—decisions involving judgment or choice and policy considerations. When that exception applies, it bars the court’s jurisdiction.

The government understood the plaintiffs’ allegations to present three negligence theories: the Bureau of Prisons failed to fulfill its duty to protect prisoners under 18 U.S.C. § 4042; it failed to monitor inmate bathrooms and discipline inmates consuming synthetic cannabinoids in common areas; and it failed to ventilate inmate bathrooms as required by Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 1600.11 and an unspecified American Correctional Association standard.

The court held that the Bureau of Prisons had discretion in how it carried out its duties under § 4042. It also held that decisions concerning staff allocation, inmate monitoring, discipline, placement, and classification fell within the discretionary-function exception.

As to bathroom ventilation, the court found that the plaintiffs had not identified an American Correctional Association standard or shown that it had been incorporated into a federal statute, regulation, or policy. The court also concluded that Program Statement 1600.11 did not apply to inmate bathrooms because its stated ventilation-survey requirements covered inmate cells or rooms, officer stations, and dining areas. No other controlling federal requirement was identified.

The court further held that ventilation decisions involved protected policy judgment because officials had to balance facility needs, inmate and staff safety, and resource allocation. The plaintiffs did not overcome the presumption that those decisions involved protected policy judgment.

Disposition

The court granted the government’s motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). It found Stamps’s motion for summary judgment moot because the government’s motions were granted. The court ordered that both Henny’s action, No. 23-2773, and Stamps’s action, No. 23-3014, be dismissed with prejudice. Judge Paul A. Magnuson signed the order.