Hill v. Tatum

Background

Demetrius Hill, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the United States and eight individual prison officials formerly employed at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. Hill alleged that, while detained there from June through October 2016, he experienced unsanitary and inhumane cell conditions, denial of recreation, sexual harassment, interference with access to counsel and the courts, retaliation for complaints, exposure to pepper spray despite his asthma, and inadequate medical treatment afterward.

Hill brought tort claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and constitutional damages claims against the individual officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The Government moved to dismiss on several grounds, including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction over Les Owens, failure to state a claim for which a constitutional damages remedy was available, immunity, and failure to complete required administrative steps.

Claims Against Jean and Owens

Hill expressly abandoned his claims against Nadina Jean after the Government argued that she had absolute immunity. He did not respond to the argument that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Les Owens. The court treated both sets of claims as abandoned and dismissed them without prejudice: the claims against Jean based on absolute immunity and the claims against Owens based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

Constitutional Damages Claims

The court concluded that none of Hill’s constitutional claims could proceed under Bivens. It organized the allegations into five categories: access to the courts, retaliation for filing grievances, conditions of confinement, excessive force, and deliberate indifference to medical needs.

The court held that each category presented a new Bivens context—meaning a claim meaningfully different from the limited situations in which the Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional damages remedy. The court also found reasons to leave creation of a remedy to Congress, including other available remedies, the administrative grievance process, the FTCA, and Congress’s failure to create a general damages remedy against federal jail officials.

The court specifically held that:

- Hill’s access-to-the-courts claims presented a new Bivens context, and he could have pursued post-conviction relief after leaving the Metropolitan Correctional Center, including potentially seeking extra time if officials’ conduct caused a delay. - The Supreme Court’s decision in Egbert v. Boule foreclosed a Bivens action for retaliation under the First Amendment. - The administrative grievance process and the FTCA counseled against recognizing a Bivens remedy for the conditions-of-confinement claims. - The same considerations counseled against a Bivens remedy for the excessive-force claims based on pepper spray. - Although Hill’s asthma-related allegations resembled the medical-treatment claim in Carlson v. Green, the court found meaningful differences because Hill did not allege that his life was in danger and did not allege that the medical treatment he later received was inadequate or harmful.

The court dismissed all of Hill’s Bivens claims. Because no Bivens remedy was available, it did not decide whether Hill had adequately alleged constitutional violations, and it did not reach qualified immunity or exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Federal Tort Claims Act Claims

The FTCA generally requires a claimant to present a tort claim to the appropriate federal agency and receive a final written denial before filing suit. The court treated this requirement as jurisdictional. The Government ultimately limited its dismissal request to claims arising from Hill’s administrative tort complaint received by the Bureau of Prisons on May 29, 2018. Because that administrative claim had not been completed when the lawsuit was filed, the court dismissed without prejudice any FTCA claims arising from it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The FTCA claims that did not arise from the May 29, 2018 administrative tort claim survived.

Disposition

The court granted the Government’s motion to partially dismiss the second amended complaint. Claims against Jean and Owens were dismissed without prejudice; all Bivens claims were dismissed; and FTCA claims arising from the May 29, 2018 administrative claim were dismissed without prejudice. The remaining FTCA claims survived. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for general pretrial matters.