Blevins v. Iwuagwu

Background

Shondolyn Rochelle Blevins, a federal prisoner, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer against officials and employees at Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, where she had formerly been incarcerated. The court initially dismissed her complaint but allowed her to amend it. It then dismissed her amended complaint with another opportunity to amend. Blevins filed a second amended complaint.

Although Blevins used a form for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court explained that she was suing federal employees, not state actors. The court therefore treated the complaint as a damages action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, which recognizes certain constitutional damages claims against federal employees.

Claims and analysis

Blevins alleged that prison staff failed to intervene in her disputes with another inmate and that Defendant LeMasters refused to intervene because Blevins had filed complaints against that inmate. She also alleged that the other inmate attacked her after a verbal disagreement, that Blevins was charged with “fighting with another person,” and that her assigned staff representative, Defendant Miller, did not appear at her disciplinary hearing. The incident report was later dismissed and Blevins’s good-conduct time was restored after a rehearing.

The court found that the retaliation claim failed because Blevins did not allege that she was actually harmed or discouraged from exercising her First Amendment rights. It dismissed that claim for failure to state a claim.

The court treated the allegation about Defendant Miller as a possible due-process claim under the Fifth Amendment. Even assuming Miller’s failure to appear violated a procedural protection, the court held that Blevins received the required correction when the incident report was dismissed and her good-conduct time was restored. It therefore concluded that she did not state a due-process claim and dismissed it for failure to state a claim.

Blevins also alleged that “FCI-Dublin supervisory officials” enforced unconstitutional practices involving staff representatives at disciplinary hearings, surveillance cameras, and the return of violent inmates to the general population. The court held that these allegations did not identify each supervisor, the constitutional deprivation involved, or each person’s direct misconduct. It dismissed the supervisory-liability claim for failure to state a claim.

Finally, Blevins alleged that the Bureau of Prisons disciplinary rule prohibiting “fighting with another person” was unconstitutionally vague. The court assumed that a prison rule could be challenged as vague but held that the complaint presented a new type of constitutional damages claim under Bivens. It found that Blevins had an adequate alternative remedy through the prison grievance process, which had resulted in dismissal of the rule violation and restoration of her good-conduct time. The court also noted that the constitutional damages remedy does not extend to damages claims against federal agencies. It dismissed the vagueness claim for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The court concluded that the second amended complaint did not contain sufficient facts to support any cognizable claim. Because Blevins had already received two opportunities to amend, the court dismissed the entire action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The opinion does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.