Jeffrey Cohen v. United States of America et al.

Background

Jeffrey Cohen, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued the United States and others over matters arising during his incarceration at FCI Otisville and FCI Gilmer. His existing claims included allegations that he was denied or delayed medical care and that his mail was improperly handled. The operative complaint also included claims against Seven Corners, Inc.

Cohen moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) to supplement his second amended complaint with events that allegedly occurred after that complaint was filed. The proposed supplement would add John Doe, an employee at FCI Otisville; Darek Puzio, an assistant warden at FCI Danbury; and “C. Flowers,” identified as the warden at FCI Danbury. The proposed claims concerned the alleged mishandling or disposal of Cohen’s legal materials during or after his transfer to FCI Danbury and alleged retaliation for filing this lawsuit.

Cohen withdrew proposed Claims 11 and 12 against the United States in his reply, but did not withdraw Claim 12 against Doe and Puzio. The court therefore addressed Claims 8, 9, 10, and 12 against Doe and Puzio, and Claim 13 against the United States. The court did not separately analyze Flowers because the proposed pleading did not contain factual allegations involving Flowers; it stated that any claims against Flowers would be analyzed in the same way as the claims against Doe and Puzio.

Connection to the Existing Claims

Rule 15(d) permits a court to allow a party to add facts and claims based on events occurring after the pleading being supplemented. The court found that Cohen’s proposed claims were sufficiently connected to his existing claims. His existing claims concerned the conditions of his incarceration and alleged denial or delay of medical care, while the proposed claims concerned his transfer, the handling of his legal materials, and the effect of the alleged loss of those materials on his ability to prove his existing claims. The court concluded that these matters involved related conditions of incarceration and pending litigation.

Futility of the Proposed Claims

The court next considered whether the proposed claims would be futile. A proposed claim is futile if it would not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or, where applicable, because the court would lack jurisdiction.

For Claims 8, 9, 10, and 12 against Doe and Puzio, Cohen characterized the allegations as common-law tort claims brought against the individuals in their personal capacities. The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act gives federal employees immunity from common-law tort claims for conduct within the scope of their employment. Applying New York law to Doe’s alleged conduct and Connecticut law to Puzio’s alleged conduct, the court concluded that handling a prisoner’s personal property was within their employment duties. The alleged wrongful or improper handling of that property did not take the conduct outside the scope of employment. The court therefore found these common-law claims futile.

The court also construed some of Cohen’s allegations as possible constitutional claims under the limited remedy recognized under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. It explained that an intentional deprivation of property may support such a claim, but a negligent deprivation does not. Claims 8 and 10 alleged negligent or reckless deprivation and therefore would be futile on that basis. The court separately held that any Bivens claims based on intentional deprivation in Claims 9 and 12 were futile because Cohen had not exhausted the required prison grievance process. The court declined to decide whether those claims otherwise stated a constitutional claim.

For Claim 13 against the United States, Cohen proposed an ordinary-negligence claim based on the alleged disposal of his legal materials. Because this was a tort claim against the United States, it was governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act. That statute requires a claimant to submit an appropriate administrative claim, including the amount of damages sought, and receive a final agency decision or wait the required period before filing in federal court. The court found that the supplemental pleading did not allege that Cohen had completed this process. It therefore concluded that the claim would be futile because the court would lack subject-matter jurisdiction, and it declined to reach the claim’s merits.

Disposition

The court DENIED without prejudice Cohen’s motion for leave to supplement his operative pleading. The order did not state that the existing claims were dismissed. Judge Victoria Reznik directed the Clerk of Court to close the matter associated with the motion.