Swinton v. Department of Justice

Background

Malik Haleem Swinton filed the action without a lawyer. He listed the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, GEO Group, BOP residential reentry manager James Highman, and GEO Group house director Lang as defendants, although the complaint stated that he was suing two defendants.

Swinton alleged that, while living at GEO Group’s Oakland halfway house on or around September 6, 2020, GEO Group falsely accused him of impersonating a peace officer with the intent to buy or hide a concealed weapon. He alleged that he was held in custody, that the Federal Bureau of Prisons and Highman refused to explain why he was in custody, and that defendants later restricted his ability to leave San Francisco for Las Vegas. He said he became homeless and stranded in San Francisco, moved to Indiana because San Francisco worsened his mental and physical disabilities, and suffered pain, stress, anxiety, depression, insomnia, lost wages, medical expenses, and moving-related expenses.

The complaint cited the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments; the Americans with Disabilities Act; 18 U.S.C. § 3621; and various tort and other claims, including malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, negligence, retaliation, double jeopardy, abuse of process, wrongful arrest, and related allegations. Swinton sought more than $1 million in punitive damages.

Motions and pleading deficiencies

GEO Group moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. GEO Group argued that Swinton had not connected particular defendants to particular claims and had not supplied a factual basis for each claim. The Federal Defendants—the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Department of Justice—argued that the tort claims should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Swinton had not exhausted required administrative remedies, and that the federal claims failed to state a claim. They also sought a more definite statement.

The court held that it was unclear whom Swinton intended to sue and whether he attributed particular acts to individuals, entities, or both. It also found that the complaint did not identify which action allegedly violated which federal statute or constitutional provision. The court explained that Swinton must identify the defendants involved in each claim, the constitutional provision or statute allegedly violated, the date and time of the violation, and what happened.

The court also explained principles that would apply if Swinton amended the complaint to assert tort claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons or its employees. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States—not a federal agency—is the proper defendant, and administrative remedies must be exhausted before filing suit. The court further described limits and exceptions concerning intentional torts and claims against federal employees. These explanations were provided to guide any amended pleading.

Specific claims

The court dismissed the claim under 18 U.S.C. § 3621 with prejudice, meaning that claim was barred from being reasserted in this action. The court explained that Section 3621 concerns the Bureau of Prisons’ authority to designate a prisoner’s placement and does not require placement within 500 driving miles of a primary residence. It also stated that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review individualized placement determinations under Section 3621(b).

The court found that Swinton had not stated a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act because he did not identify his disability or allege facts showing discrimination in employment, denial of services by a public entity, denial of equal access to a public accommodation, or inability to use a telecommunications service because of a disability. Because the court found it unclear whether this deficiency could be corrected, it dismissed the ADA claim with leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted GEO Group’s motion to dismiss and the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed with prejudice the claim that defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 3621 and dismissed the remainder of the complaint with leave to amend. Swinton was given 28 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, include all claims and defendants he wished to pursue, and not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference. Failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. The court also denied Swinton’s requests for permission to file surreplies, meaning additional papers after the opposing parties’ reply briefs.