Rodd v. Crandall
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-02172
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 15
In Rodd v. Crandall, Judge Tostrud granted defendants’ motion, dismissing constitutional medical-care claims without prejudice and negligence claims with prejudice for exhaustion and timeliness.
Jeffrey Charles Rodd’s constitutional medical-care and Federal Tort Claims Act claims against the defendants were dismissed; the constitutional claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the Federal Tort Claims Act claims were dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
Rodd v. Crandall concerned Jeffrey Charles Rodd’s claims that prison medical personnel failed to properly treat injuries from a wheelchair accident and his other medical conditions. Rodd, who represented himself, alleged constitutional violations, medical malpractice, and negligence.
The defendants argued that Rodd had not completed the prison grievance process before filing his constitutional claims. They also argued that his claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act were filed too late. Rodd acknowledged that he had not completed the grievance process but argued that his blindness should excuse that failure. He also argued that continuing medical problems made his tort claims timely.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud granted the defendants’ motion for dismissal or summary judgment and denied Rodd’s opposing motion. The court dismissed Rodd’s constitutional claims without prejudice because he had not exhausted available prison remedies, and dismissed his Federal Tort Claims Act claims with prejudice because he did not file suit within six months after the government denied his administrative claim.
The detailed version
- Rodd v. Crandall · No. 0:19-cv-02172
- Eric Tostrud
- Aug. 24, 2021
Background
Jeffrey Charles Rodd alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs while he was incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons. His allegations focused largely on a November 5, 2014 wheelchair accident at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota. Rodd alleged that he suffered abrasions, a swollen and twisted foot, knee problems, bleeding, and a damaged tooth. He asserted that medical personnel did not provide adequate wound care, physical therapy, pain treatment, or treatment for his continuing injuries. He also alleged inadequate treatment of chronic medical conditions, including atrial fibrillation.
Rodd asserted constitutional claims under Bivens, a type of damages claim alleging that federal officers violated constitutional rights. He also asserted medical-malpractice and negligence claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows certain claims against the United States for negligent acts by federal employees. Rodd represented himself. The opinion also notes that “Lt. Commander Hopper” was mentioned in Rodd’s filings but was not added or served as a defendant.
Constitutional claims and exhaustion
The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, for summary judgment under Rule 56. Because the defendants relied on evidence outside the pleadings concerning exhaustion, and because Rodd had an opportunity to respond, the court treated the motion as one for summary judgment.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing a federal lawsuit about prison conditions. The Bureau of Prisons uses a four-step process: informal resolution, a written request to the warden, an appeal to the regional director, and a final appeal to the Bureau of Prisons’ General Counsel.
Rodd conceded that he had not completed this process before filing suit. Records showed that he had filed no administrative remedies during his Bureau of Prisons incarceration. Rodd argued that his blindness excused his failure to exhaust. The court rejected that argument. It found no applicable exception based on special circumstances, and it noted that the grievance procedure allowed assistance and reasonable accommodations for disabled inmates. The court therefore concluded that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Rodd’s deliberate-indifference claims.
Federal Tort Claims Act claims
The court separately considered Rodd’s negligence and malpractice claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Act generally requires a claimant to present an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency before filing suit. Although Rodd did not allege complete exhaustion in his pleadings, the defendants’ evidence showed that he presented a claim to the Bureau of Prisons on February 5, 2018, and received a final denial on March 21, 2018. Because the defendants did not challenge the sufficiency of that presentment, the court treated the presentment requirement as satisfied for jurisdictional purposes.
The court then addressed the Act’s deadlines. Rodd’s administrative claim was filed more than two years after the November 5, 2014 accident. The court did not resolve whether continuing treatment could affect that two-year deadline because it assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that the claims were not barred on that ground. But the court held that Rodd’s lawsuit was filed more than six months after the Bureau of Prisons mailed its final denial. The court concluded that the alleged continuing treatment did not extend the six-month deadline for filing suit.
Disposition
Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment was GRANTED. Rodd’s motion opposing that relief was DENIED. Rodd’s Bivens claims were DISMISSED without prejudice, while his Federal Tort Claims Act claims were DISMISSED with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.