Thomas v. Government

Background

Glenn Macpherson Thomas brought this action without a lawyer under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a doctrine allowing certain damages claims against individual federal officers for constitutional violations. He sued Judge Edgardo Ramos, who presided over his federal criminal proceedings; former defense attorneys Michael H. Sporn and Jeremy Gutman; and the “Federal Government.” Thomas sought $450,000 in damages, release from incarceration, and an order vacating his conviction.

Thomas alleged that Judge Ramos improperly allowed the government to use statements at trial, denied him the opportunity to question a witness, and delayed entering judgment. He alleged that Sporn and Gutman conspired to violate his due-process rights by withholding evidence that could have cleared him. He invoked the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments and 18 U.S.C. § 241.

Screening standard

Because Thomas was incarcerated and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees upfront, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. Those statutes require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims against Judge Ramos

The court held that judges have absolute immunity from damages claims for actions taken within the scope of their judicial responsibilities. Thomas’s allegations concerned actions related to his criminal case before Judge Ramos. The court therefore dismissed the claims against Judge Ramos because they sought money from a defendant immune from that relief.

Claims against the defense attorneys

The court held that Thomas could not pursue damages against Sporn and Gutman under Bivens based on their alleged constitutional violations. To state such a claim, Thomas had to allege that the defendants acted as government officials. The court explained that attorneys serving as defense counsel are not government actors merely because they represent defendants in criminal proceedings. The court therefore concluded that Thomas could not state a Bivens claim against Sporn and Gutman on the allegations presented.

Claim against the “Federal Government”

The court explained that a Bivens damages action is directed at individual federal officials, not the federal government or a federal agency. It also held that sovereign immunity generally protects the United States from lawsuits unless immunity has been waived. Because Thomas did not identify a federal law waiving immunity for this claim, the court dismissed the damages claim against the “Federal Government” for failure to state a Bivens claim and because of sovereign immunity.

Request for release from custody

Thomas also challenged his conviction and sentence and sought release. The court held that a claim challenging the fact or duration of confinement must be brought in a petition seeking judicial review of the detention, rather than in a civil-rights action for damages. The court noted that Thomas had already filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his amended conviction judgment, and that motion had been denied on the merits on October 2, 2024. Because Thomas had already raised these claims in an earlier motion that was decided against him on the merits, the court declined to treat this civil complaint, in part, as another § 2255 motion.

Leave to amend and disposition

Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint when amendment might cure its defects, the court found that amendment here would be futile. It noted that Thomas had repeatedly brought damages claims involving his defense counsel, the district judge from his criminal proceedings, and the federal government. The court declined to allow him to replead.

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), declined to recharacterize part of the action as a motion to vacate the conviction under § 2255, and did not add a prejudice qualifier to the dismissal. Judge Louis L. Stanton entered the order.