Fa' Aita v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Background

Mark Philip Fa’Aita, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action against the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Lompoc facility, Warden Felipe Martinez, Ms. Corlone, identified as the Camp Administrator, and Mr. Espinoza, identified as the Special Housing Unit Lieutenant. The opinion describes Fa’Aita as apparently a former federal prisoner. He alleged that he was held in the Special Housing Unit for more than 400 days and developed mental and psychological problems. He claimed that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by placing him in the unit, keeping him there, or failing to do enough to secure his release. He sought damages for his pain and suffering, permanent psychological problems, his wife and children’s pain and suffering, and future treatment and medication.

Legal framework

Because Fa’Aita challenged actions by federal employees, the court treated the case as a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents. A Bivens claim is a damages claim against an individual federal employee for an alleged constitutional violation. The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires review of a prisoner’s complaint against a government entity or employee and permits dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek damages from an immune defendant. The court was required to read the allegations from a self-represented plaintiff liberally, but the complaint still had to contain enough facts to make a plausible claim.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Fa’Aita could not proceed against the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Lompoc facility because a Bivens damages remedy does not extend to federal agencies. The court therefore ordered that the Bureau be dismissed from the action and that the Clerk terminate it as a party.

The court also held that the allegations against the individual defendants were insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim, assuming such a claim was available under Bivens. Such a claim requires allegations showing both an objectively serious deprivation and that the official acted with deliberate indifference—meaning the official knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. The court found that Fa’Aita did not describe the conditions in the Special Housing Unit well enough to show a sufficiently serious deprivation. It also found that he did not allege each individual defendant’s state of mind or facts showing deliberate indifference.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Fa’Aita was given 28 days from the filing of the order to submit an amended complaint on the court’s form, using the case caption and number and answering all questions on the form. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint, so claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the case. The court stated that failure to respond as ordered and within the allotted time would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice to stating a claim for relief. The court also directed the Clerk to provide Fa’Aita with two copies of the form complaint.