Block v. United States Government
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-00127
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 14
In Block v. United States Government, Judge Tunheim dismissed Block’s civil-rights claims with prejudice but dismissed his Federal Tort Claims Act claim without prejudice and allowed amendment.
Waylen Block’s claims were limited: his § 1983 and Bivens claims were dismissed with prejudice, while his FTCA claim against the United States was dismissed without prejudice and may be amended. All other defendants were dismissed.
What happened
In Block v. United States Government, Waylen Block, who was incarcerated and represented himself, sued prison officials and the United States. He alleged that prison conditions and delays or problems in medical care worsened his health, including his kidney disease and vision loss.
Block brought claims under a law for suits against state officials, an implied constitutional remedy for some federal-employee misconduct, and the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court found that no defendant was a state actor for purposes of the state-official claims, and that Block’s allegations did not fit a recognized constitutional remedy against federal officials. The court said his Federal Tort Claims Act claim might be legally viable but did not clearly identify the state-law basis for conduct occurring in several jurisdictions.
Judge John R. Tunheim granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the state-official claims and the constitutional claims against federal officials with prejudice, dismissed the Federal Tort Claims Act claim against the United States without prejudice, and allowed Block to amend that claim. The court also adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in part and rejected it in part, referred Block to the Pro Se Project for possible counsel, and dismissed all defendants except the United States.
The detailed version
- Block v. United States Government · No. 0:23-cv-00127
- John Tunheim
- Sept. 30, 2024
Background
Waylen Block, an incarcerated person representing himself, sued various officials associated with the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota, the Bureau of Prisons, and the United States. He alleged that prison conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to worsening health problems and that prison personnel failed to provide adequate medical care, including dialysis and prescribed eye injections. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens, and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
Block’s allegations included exposure to COVID-19 at the Sandstone facility, problems with food and medication after a hospital visit, continued wrist restraints during dialysis trips, problems with catheter care and dialysis at the Federal Medical Center in Devens, Massachusetts, and delays in treatment for his worsening vision. The alleged conduct occurred in Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, and Oklahoma.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the constitutional claims while allowing the FTCA claim to continue with an amended complaint. Both sides objected. Block challenged dismissal of his Bivens claim, while the defendants challenged allowing the FTCA claim to proceed. Neither side objected to dismissing the § 1983 claim.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that § 1983 applies to claims against state officials acting under state authority. Because Block did not sue any state actors, the court dismissed his § 1983 claim with prejudice.
Bivens allows damages claims in certain limited circumstances against federal officials for constitutional violations. The Supreme Court has recognized only three types of Bivens claims, including an Eighth Amendment claim involving deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition. The court held that Block’s claims about conditions at the federal prison and delayed eye treatment arose in a new Bivens context because they differed meaningfully from the previously recognized medical-care case. The court also found that the availability of the FTCA claim and the Supreme Court’s strong opposition to expanding Bivens counseled against extending the remedy. In addition, the court found that Block had not identified specific defendants who deliberately delayed his eye treatment and had instead made general allegations. It dismissed the Bivens claim with prejudice.
The FTCA is a limited waiver of the federal government’s immunity for certain torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Block properly named the United States and had exhausted his administrative remedies. However, the court found that his complaint did not clearly identify the substantive state law supporting the FTCA claim, particularly because he alleged conduct in multiple jurisdictions. The court therefore dismissed the FTCA claim without prejudice and granted leave to amend it.
The court declined, at that stage, to decide whether the FTCA allegations arising from Massachusetts should be handled there. It noted that the Massachusetts cases had not been substantively resolved and that no motion to transfer had been filed.
Disposition
The court sustained Block’s objection only as to a minor factual issue and otherwise overruled it. It sustained the defendants’ objection, adopted the report and recommendation in part, and rejected it in part. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted as follows:
- Block’s § 1983 claims were dismissed with prejudice. - Block’s Bivens claims were dismissed with prejudice. - Block’s FTCA claim against the United States was dismissed without prejudice, and Block was granted leave to amend it. - All defendants other than the United States were dismissed. - Block was referred to the Pro Se Project for possible appointment of counsel.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.