Jackson v. Stewart

Background

Taurean O’Keith Jackson, representing himself, sued the United States and Annie Stewart, a nurse practitioner sued in her individual capacity. Jackson alleged that Stewart subjected him to verbal and physical sexual abuse while he was an inmate employed in the medical department at FCI Otisville. He alleged that Stewart later caused him to be placed in the Special Housing Unit after accusing him of sexually assaulting her.

Jackson asserted a negligence claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a federal statute that permits certain tort suits against the United States. He also asserted constitutional claims against Stewart under a judge-made remedy known as a Bivens claim, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendments.

FTCA Claim

The defendants argued that the court lacked authority to hear Jackson’s FTCA claim because he had not exhausted the required administrative remedies. Before filing an FTCA lawsuit, a claimant must submit a written claim to the appropriate federal agency, including a specific amount of money sought, and generally must wait for the agency’s final denial or six months to pass.

The court found that Jackson had not adequately alleged or shown that he satisfied this requirement. His filings gave inconsistent dates for when he submitted his administrative claim, and the envelope submitted with the defendants’ papers indicated that the claim was sent on September 27, 2022. The court concluded that, even under the dates Jackson asserted, the claim could not have been exhausted before the lawsuit was filed. It therefore dismissed the FTCA claim as premature for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not decide the defendants’ alternative argument that the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception barred the claim.

Bivens Claims

The court dismissed Jackson’s Bivens claims because it found that he had abandoned them. In his opposition, Jackson stated that the claims “might be a bit of a stretch,” and he did not respond to the defendants’ arguments addressing those claims.

In a footnote, the court stated that it had also considered the potential Bivens claims based on the defendants’ briefing. The court said that none of the potential claims was legally available because each involved a new context for a Bivens remedy and special considerations counseled against expanding that remedy.

Other Claims Raised in Opposition

Jackson appeared to assert failure-to-report and intentional-tort claims for the first time in his opposition papers. The court declined to consider those claims because they were not raised in the operative pleadings.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in full and dismissed all of Jackson’s claims without prejudice. The court stated that the dismissal was without prejudice because this was the first adjudication on the merits of Jackson’s claims. It gave Jackson thirty days from the date of the opinion to file an amended complaint. Any amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the existing complaint and would need to include all claims and factual allegations Jackson wanted the court to consider.