Fleming v. United States Department of Justice
- Susan Nelson
- 0:19-cv-02713
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Fleming v. United States Department of Justice, Judge Nelson adopted the recommendation, denied Fleming’s objections and substitution motion, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Rhonda Fleming’s action was dismissed without prejudice. All defendants except Lieutenant Riehm and six unknown Bureau of Prisons correctional officers at Waseca, in their individual capacities, were dismissed without prejudice; the remaining filings and motions were treated as moot.
What was alleged
The complaint alleges a pattern of sexual harassment and sexual assault of female federal inmates by Bureau of Prisons employees across multiple facilities, and claims the Department of Justice has failed to prevent or adequately punish such conduct. The plaintiff alleges she was personally subjected to sexual assault and physical abuse at three separate federal facilities, including incidents in 2015, 2017, and 2018, and that she was subsequently held in a Special Housing Unit in retaliation for reporting the abuse. The complaint also alleges denial of medical and mental health care, denial of basic hygiene items, and ongoing harassment and intimidation. The plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of all similarly situated female federal inmates, with a jury trial demanded.
What happened
Fleming v. United States Department of Justice involved Rhonda Fleming’s constitutional claims about alleged events at federal prisons in Minnesota, West Virginia, and Texas. The court reviewed her objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendations about filing fees, defendants, and the structure of the case.
The court found Fleming ineligible to proceed without paying the filing fee because she had accumulated at least three qualifying prior dismissals and did not show an imminent danger of serious physical injury. She did not timely pay the required fee, and the court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. It also denied her motion to substitute a party, dismissed without prejudice all defendants except the Minnesota prison defendants identified in the order, and dismissed her claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Fleming’s objections and adopted the report and recommendation. The court denied Fleming’s request for appointed counsel as moot and treated the remaining motions and a later report and recommendation as moot.
The detailed version
- Fleming v. United States Department of Justice · No. 0:19-cv-02713
- Susan Nelson
- Mar. 26, 2020
Background
Rhonda Fleming, who was representing herself, brought a civil-rights action concerning alleged constitutional violations at the Federal Correctional Institution at Waseca, Minnesota; the Federal Correctional Institution at Hazelton, West Virginia; and the Federal Medical Center at Carswell, Texas. The case was transferred from the District of Columbia to the District of Minnesota. The District of Columbia court had struck Fleming’s class-action allegations.
The magistrate judge’s February 5, 2020 report and recommendation addressed several threshold issues. It recommended denying Fleming’s motion to substitute the United States government as a party; dismissing without prejudice all defendants except Lieutenant Riehm and six unknown Bureau of Prisons correctional officers at Waseca, in their individual capacities; dismissing Fleming’s Federal Tort Claims Act claim; and dismissing the action without prejudice unless Fleming paid the required $400 filing fee during the objection period.
Filing-fee issue
Fleming had initially received permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court applied the federal prisoner-litigation rule that generally bars a prisoner with three or more qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without paying the fee, unless the prisoner shows that she is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court found that Fleming had accumulated more than the required number of qualifying dismissals. Fleming argued that she faced imminent danger because of alleged prison sexual abuse and a nationwide pattern of mistreatment. The court held that these generalized allegations did not establish the required connection between an imminent danger and the claims in this action. It also concluded that Fleming was not in imminent danger based on events at facilities where she was no longer present, including Hazelton and Carswell, and that she had no reason to fear imminent serious injury from Waseca defendants at a facility from which she had long been absent.
The court therefore found Fleming ineligible to proceed without paying the filing fee. Fleming did not timely pay the fee required by the magistrate judge.
Court’s rulings
The court overruled Fleming’s objections and adopted the February 5, 2020 report and recommendation. It dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not itself bar a later filing, although the opinion does not address whether any later filing would be permitted or viable.
The court also denied Fleming’s motion to substitute a party. It dismissed without prejudice all defendants except Lieutenant Riehm and six unknown Bureau of Prisons correctional officers at Waseca, in their individual capacities. The opinion states that these dismissals rested on failure to state a claim, sovereign immunity, and/or improper joinder. It also dismissed Fleming’s Federal Tort Claims Act claim for several stated reasons, including improper venue.
Fleming requested appointment of counsel, but the court denied that request as moot because the action was being dismissed. The court further ruled that all pending motions and the March 23, 2020 report and recommendation were moot and ordered them terminated from the docket.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.