Simmons v. Mischel

Background

Joyce Marie Simmons, a federal prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, California, sued Tamara Mischel, Kimberly Luke, Ashley Phillips, Gordon Castillo, Timothy Brosnan, and W.Z. Jenkins, II. She represented herself. Her verified complaint asserted three constitutional claims: excessive force and failure to protect against excessive force under the Eighth Amendment; retaliation under the First Amendment based on her placement in administrative detention; and denial of due process under the Fifth Amendment concerning that detention.

The court treated the complaint as an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents rather than under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The alleged events included an August 15, 2017 cell-door incident involving Phillips and Simmons’s right knee, Simmons’s placement in the Special Housing Unit from October 11 through November 15, 2017, and her transfer from the minimum-security prison camp to a low-security facility.

Defendants’ Motions

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that a damages claim would improperly extend the Bivens remedy. In the alternative, they moved for summary judgment, arguing that Simmons had not exhausted available prison grievance remedies, that they had not violated her constitutional rights, and that they were protected by qualified immunity.

Exhaustion Requirement

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing an action concerning prison conditions in federal court. For federal prisoners asserting constitutional violations through Bivens, this generally requires completing the Bureau of Prisons’ grievance process, including required appeals.

The court considered the evidence in the light most favorable to Simmons. The record showed that she had filed three administrative remedy requests possibly related to the lawsuit. She did not dispute that the Warden responded to those requests or that she did not appeal the responses to the Regional Director or the Bureau of Prisons’ General Counsel. None of the three requests addressed the August 15 cell-door incident underlying her excessive-force claim.

Simmons argued that completing the grievance process would have been futile or that prison officials had failed to respond. The court found that the evidence she cited concerned informal messages about her administrative detention, not a formal grievance and appeals. Her later submission described alleged problems with grievances filed in 2019, but it did not provide evidence that she exhausted remedies for the claims in this case or that the available procedures were unavailable to her.

The court concluded that no genuine dispute of material fact existed regarding exhaustion and that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their affirmative defense of failure to exhaust. Because exhaustion barred the constitutional claims from proceeding, the court did not address the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion or their other summary-judgment arguments.

Federal Tort Claims Act

Simmons also submitted an administrative tort claim concerning the cell-door incident. The Bureau of Prisons denied that claim on February 15, 2018. The court explained that the Federal Tort Claims Act can provide a remedy for certain torts under state law committed by federal employees, but it does not provide a way to pursue the constitutional claims asserted in Simmons’s complaint.

The court had not previously determined whether Simmons’s pro se complaint should be read to include a Federal Tort Claims Act claim. Because the administrative tort claim might support such a claim and would not be subject to the same Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion requirement discussed for the constitutional claims, the court allowed Simmons an opportunity to file an amended complaint attempting to plead a Federal Tort Claims Act claim.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to their affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It dismissed Simmons’s Bivens claims on that basis. The court allowed Simmons to amend her complaint only to attempt to state a Federal Tort Claims Act claim, unless she first obtained the court’s permission to add other claims. The amended complaint was due within 30 days of the order. The order stated that failure to file it on time would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.