McIntosh v. Gallion

Background

Patrick Randell McIntosh sued Lieutenant Gallion, Captain Hess, Warden Jared Rardin, and Dr. Dionne Hart over alleged events at Federal Medical Center Rochester. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments.

The alleged events included Dr. Hart calling McIntosh a racist and issuing an incident report; Lieutenant Gallion and Captain Hess placing McIntosh in handcuffs and escorting him to a medical office; statements by Gallion and Hess that McIntosh characterized as threats, harassment, or intimidation; an order that McIntosh write an apology; and a later threat by Hess involving four-point restraints. McIntosh also alleged that Dr. Hart disclosed his diagnosis to law enforcement without his consent. He sought actual, compensatory, and punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.

McIntosh clarified that he sued each defendant in both personal and official capacities. He later moved from Federal Medical Center Rochester to Federal Medical Center Butner. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns failure to state a legally sufficient claim. McIntosh did not oppose the motion. The report and recommendation was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright; the supplied case metadata identifies John Tunheim as the district judge.

Analysis

The report first addressed declaratory and injunctive relief. Because McIntosh was no longer housed at Federal Medical Center Rochester, the court concluded that any request for prospective relief concerning alleged conditions or conduct there was moot. The recommendation therefore called for those requests against the defendants in their official capacities to be dismissed without prejudice.

The report treated McIntosh’s constitutional claims as claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, an implied damages remedy against federal officials sued in their individual capacities for certain constitutional violations. The court concluded that McIntosh’s First Amendment claims, Fourth Amendment claims, Fifth Amendment due-process claims, and possible Eighth Amendment claims concerning excessive force arose in contexts different from the limited situations in which the Supreme Court has recognized a Bivens remedy. It further concluded that special factors—including congressional regulation of prisoner litigation, concerns about interference with prison administration, and the availability of the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative grievance process and injunctive relief—counseled against extending Bivens. The recommendation was dismissal with prejudice of those individual-capacity damages claims.

The court also concluded that McIntosh had not adequately alleged an Eighth Amendment Bivens claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need because he did not allege facts showing a serious medical need or that defendants knew of and deliberately disregarded such a need. That claim was recommended for dismissal without prejudice.

As to Warden Rardin, the court found that McIntosh had not alleged that Rardin took specific action against him. Because Bivens does not permit liability based solely on a supervisor’s responsibility for subordinates, the report recommended dismissing the respondeat superior claims against Rardin with prejudice.

The ADA claims were recommended for dismissal with prejudice because the court concluded that the ADA’s definition of covered public entities does not include the federal government and does not provide a cause of action against the federal Bureau of Prisons employees in this context. The Rehabilitation Act claim was recommended for dismissal without prejudice because McIntosh did not allege facts showing that he was a qualified individual with a disability or that he was denied access to a federally funded program because of a disability. The HIPAA claims were recommended for dismissal with prejudice because HIPAA does not create a private right of action.

Recommendation and procedural status

The magistrate judge recommended that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. Specifically, the recommendation was to dismiss without prejudice the official-capacity requests for declaratory and injunctive relief; dismiss with prejudice the specified individual-capacity Bivens damages claims and all respondeat superior claims against Rardin; dismiss without prejudice the Bivens medical-care claim and the Rehabilitation Act claim; and dismiss with prejudice the ADA and HIPAA claims.

The document stated that it was a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court, and therefore was not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals. It stated that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after service.