Henny v. United States of America

Background

Kimberly Ann Henny filed this action in 2023 against the United States. She alleged, among other things, that officials of the Federal Bureau of Prisons exposed her to secondhand synthetic cannabinoid smoke, endangered her health, and violated the law.

The court dismissed most of Henny’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A shortly after the case was filed. One claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act was allowed to proceed but was later dismissed because the court lacked jurisdiction. The opinion states that Henny did not appeal the dismissal.

Nearly two years after judgment was entered, Henny moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from the judgment. She relied partly on evidence that she suffered a heart attack in 2024, after the case was dismissed.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Henny could not rely on Rule 60(b)(2), which allows relief based on newly discovered evidence, because Rule 60(c)(1) requires such a motion to be filed no more than one year after the judgment or order. Henny filed her motion well beyond that period.

The court also concluded that the heart-attack evidence would not change the result. The case had not been dismissed because Henny lacked evidence supporting her claims. Instead, the Federal Tort Claims Act claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and Henny had not adequately pleaded a claim under Bivens against any individual defendant. The opinion states that Henny did not submit a proposed amended complaint and that her earlier pleading would still have the same problems.

For her alternative request under Rule 60(b)(6), Henny had to seek relief within a reasonable time. The court found that she had known the evidentiary basis for that request for about 18 months and had not acted with the diligence required by Rule 60(c)(1).

The court further rejected Henny’s effort to relitigate constitutional claims based on prison officials’ alleged deliberate indifference to her medical needs. The court explained that extending a damages remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents beyond the contexts already recognized by the Supreme Court is strongly disfavored. It found that Henny’s allegations concerned officials’ failure to address prison conditions that contributed to health problems, not a failure to provide medical care or medical care so inadequate that it violated the Constitution. The court also noted that Henny had not identified a specific individual against whom she could bring a plausible claim.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Magnuson ordered that Henny’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b), docket number 53, was DENIED.