Swinton v. Department of Justice

Background

Malik Haleem Swinton filed this action without a lawyer against Geo Group, Inc. and the United States of America. The court reviewed his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or employee.

Swinton alleged that, in September 2020, he was arrested without probable cause, held in county jail for more than two months without being charged, and then kept in Geo Group’s custody for another month after his release from jail. He alleged that Geo Group employees did not explain why he was removed from a halfway house, did not warn him about a crime or halfway-house violation, and attempted to conceal his arrest and detention. He also alleged that he was denied drug-and-alcohol treatment and medical treatment because of his race and disabilities.

Swinton alleged that the United States falsely accused him twice of firearms crimes, denied him reasonable accommodations through a federally contracted facility, and improperly denied him halfway-house services. He asserted claims under several constitutional amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Law Enforcement Officers Enforcement Safety Act, and other authorities. He sought compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages.

Court’s Analysis

The court dismissed with prejudice the claim based on 60 Am. Jur. 2d Penal and Correctional Etc. 122, explaining that American Jurisprudence is a legal encyclopedia and is not itself law that creates a claim for relief.

The court also dismissed with prejudice the claim based on United States Probation and Pretrial Services halfway-house rules and regulations because those rules are not federal law. It dismissed with prejudice the Americans with Disabilities Act claim because, as the court explained, the statute does not apply to the United States or federal agencies. The court additionally stated that the allegations did not state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, which applies to federal agencies, contractors, and recipients of federal financial assistance.

The court dismissed with prejudice Swinton’s constitutional claims against Geo Group. It held that there is no damages action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents against a private entity acting under color of federal law, citing the Supreme Court’s decision involving a private corporation operating a halfway house.

The court dismissed the rest of the amended complaint with leave to amend. It found that the Title VI allegations did not plausibly connect the arrest or denial of programming to race; a conclusory statement that Swinton was discriminated against because of race and disabilities was insufficient. The court also found that the Law Enforcement Officers Enforcement Safety Act claim was deficient because Swinton did not allege compliance with the statute’s identification and firearms-certification requirements. In particular, the identification attached to the complaint identified him as a Human Resources Specialist rather than as a police or law-enforcement officer.

The court explained that constitutional claims against the United States are generally barred by sovereign immunity unless the United States has clearly consented to suit. It stated that a constitutional damages claim under Bivens may be brought only against individual federal officers in their individual capacities, subject to limits on that remedy, not against the United States. The court allowed Swinton to amend to identify an individual federal officer, while noting those limitations.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend and gave Swinton 28 days to file a second amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The new complaint had to include all claims and defendants he wished to pursue, could not re-allege claims or defendants already dismissed with prejudice, and would replace the earlier complaints. The court warned that failure to file a compliant second amended complaint within the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.

The court denied as moot the motions to dismiss filed by the Department of Justice and Geo Group. The opinion’s caption identifies the case as No. 22-cv-04276-JST, while the conclusion instructs Swinton to use a different case-number format, “C 23-04276 JST (PR),” in the second amended complaint.