Carattini v. Behun

Background

Eric Carattini, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Christopher Behun. Carattini alleged that after a brief car chase, he was arrested, handcuffed, and transported by Behun, whom the complaint identified as a Drug Enforcement Administration task-force officer. Carattini alleged that the vehicle had no seat belt, light bars, or radio; that Behun repeatedly elbowed and struck him; and that Behun slammed on the brakes, causing Carattini to hit and crack the windshield. Carattini also alleged that Behun failed to obtain medical attention for him, although he was eventually sent to a local hospital.

The Second Amended Complaint asserted a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim and a Fifth Amendment deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs claim. Carattini cited 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but the court explained that this statute applies to state, not federal, officers. The court therefore construed the claims as seeking damages under Bivens, a doctrine allowing certain constitutional damages claims against federal officers. Behun moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to state a legally sufficient claim.

Fourth Amendment Excessive Force

The court held that Carattini’s excessive-force claim could proceed. It concluded that the claim did not arise in a meaningfully different Bivens context because both this case and the Supreme Court’s original Bivens case involved narcotics officers carrying out arrests. The court also rejected Behun’s argument that the existence of an alternative remedy under the Federal Tort Claims Act alone prevented a Bivens claim.

Accepting Carattini’s factual allegations as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court found that repeatedly striking him in the ribs, arm, shoulder, and face, and causing him to hit his head on the windshield, alleged more than reasonable force. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim.

Fifth Amendment Medical-Indifference Claim

The court treated Carattini as, at most, a pretrial detainee, so it analyzed his medical-indifference claim under the Fifth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment. Although the claim closely resembled the medical-treatment claim recognized in Carlson v. Green, the court found meaningful differences. In particular, this case involved a different category of defendant from the prison officials in Carlson, and Carattini alleged injuries that were unspecified and not life-threatening, unlike the severe asthma condition that resulted in death in Carlson.

The court held that the claim therefore arose in a new Bivens context. It found that the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which governs lawsuits by people detained because they are accused of crimes and requires exhaustion of certain prison-related claims, counseled against creating a new damages remedy. The court concluded that no Supreme Court decision authorized this particular Fifth Amendment Bivens claim. It dismissed the claim with prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted in part and denied in part Behun’s motion to dismiss. The Fifth Amendment medical-indifference claim was dismissed with prejudice. The Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim remained pending, and Behun was directed to answer the Second Amended Complaint by July 23, 2024. The parties were also directed to file a case-management plan and scheduling order by August 6, 2024.