Block v. United States Government

Background

Waylen Block, a federal prisoner currently housed at the Federal Medical Center in Devens, Massachusetts, filed this lawsuit pro se (without a lawyer) arising from events during his incarceration at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota (FCI Sandstone). Block alleged that during COVID-19 lockdown he was placed in overcrowded quarters, contracted COVID-19, and suffered kidney failure requiring dialysis three times per week. He was transported to outside dialysis centers under escort. During those escorts, Block alleged that all but one time he was kept in 'black box' restraints — a type of over-handcuff device — for the entire duration of his dialysis treatment, causing high blood pressure, headaches, nausea, vomiting, anxiety, worsening vision, and heart strain. Block repeatedly requested removal of the restraints but claims those requests were always denied.

Block also alleged that upon return from a hospital stay, he was placed in a special housing unit where staff were unaware of his medical condition and he was denied adequate meals for roughly twenty-four hours.

Claims and Prior Procedural History

Block originally asserted three categories of claims:

1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — a civil rights statute allowing suits against state or local officials. The court previously dismissed these claims with prejudice because § 1983 does not apply to federal officials.

2. Bivens claims — a judicially created remedy, analogous to § 1983, that allows certain constitutional claims against federal officers. The court previously dismissed these claims with prejudice, finding they would require an impermissible extension of the Bivens doctrine beyond existing Supreme Court precedent.

3. Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims — the FTCA is a statute that waives the federal government's sovereign immunity (its general protection from being sued) for certain torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The court previously dismissed these claims without prejudice and granted Block leave to file an amended complaint to clarify them.

Block filed both an amended complaint and a motion to reconsider the dismissal of his Bivens claims. In the amended complaint, Block reasserted Bivens claims and FTCA claims (including assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and medical malpractice under Minnesota law). The United States — the only remaining defendant — moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (the court's authority to hear the case).

Motion to Reconsider

Block argued the court erred in its prior ruling by describing the restraints as 'wrist restraints' rather than 'black box restraints,' and that the correct description would have saved his Bivens claims.

The court denied the motion on several independent grounds:

- Procedural failure: Under Local Rule 7.1(j) of the District of Minnesota, a party must first obtain the court's permission before filing a motion to reconsider. Block did not seek that permission. The court liberally construed his pro se filing as also requesting permission, but still found it failed on the merits.

- No compelling circumstances: Motions to reconsider are reserved for correcting clear errors of law or fact or presenting newly discovered evidence. Block simply restated previously rejected arguments.

- No difference in outcome: Even using the term 'black box restraints,' Block's Bivens claims would fail. The court compared Block's circumstances to Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) — the existing Supreme Court precedent on which a Bivens claim in the prison medical context would need to be based. In Carlson, a prisoner suffered an acute asthma attack, waited eight hours for a doctor, received contraindicated medication from a nurse operating a broken respirator, and died. Block's allegations — elevated blood pressure, vomiting, worsened vision, and discomfort from black box restraints, with medication provided and the prison tracking his conditions — were held to be factually distinct. Under Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017), any extension of Bivens, even a small one, is disfavored. The court declined to extend Bivens here.

Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint

FTCA Framework

The FTCA waives sovereign immunity and allows suit against the United States for torts of federal employees acting within the scope of employment, but only in defined circumstances. Several statutory exceptions narrow this waiver and strip courts of jurisdiction when they apply.

The Discretionary Function Exception

The discretionary function exception, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), bars FTCA suits based on a federal agency's or employee's exercise of a discretionary function or duty, even if that discretion was abused. When applicable, it is a jurisdictional bar — it removes the court's power to hear the case.

Courts apply a two-step test: 1. Was the challenged conduct truly discretionary (not required or prohibited by a specific mandatory directive)? 2. If so, was the discretionary decision susceptible to grounding in social, economic, or political policy considerations?

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

There was a dispute about whether Block had properly exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit, as the FTCA requires. The court declined to resolve this dispute because the discretionary function exception already deprived the court of jurisdiction.

Bivens Claims in the Amended Complaint

Because the Bivens claims had already been dismissed with prejudice and the court denied reconsideration, any re-assertion of Bivens claims in the amended complaint was not separately analyzed in the motion-to-dismiss ruling.

Disposition

The court: - Denied Block's Motion to Reconsider (Docket No. 88). - Granted the United States' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 97). - Dismissed with prejudice Block's Amended Complaint (Docket No. 90), finding that further amendment would be futile given the number of complaints already filed. - Denied as moot Block's renewed motions for appointment of counsel and a medical expert witness (Docket No. 113).

The dismissal with prejudice means Block cannot refile these claims in this court.