Fiorito v. Anderson

Background

Michael Fiorito, who had been incarcerated in federal prison for about fifteen years, sued seven defendants connected with the Federal Correctional Institution in Ashland, Kentucky, and the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota. The Ashland-related allegations concerned retaliation, denial of medical care, and lack of due process in disciplinary proceedings. The Sandstone-related allegation concerned the withholding of time credits under the First Step Act without due process.

Fiorito originally filed the lawsuit in Minnesota state court. The United States or federal employees removed it to the District of Minnesota under the federal-officer removal statute. The court observed that filing in state court could avoid some federal prisoner-litigation requirements, but it did not decide that issue as the basis for the dismissal. After removal, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applied.

Reasons for dismissal

The court concluded that the complaint improperly joined unrelated defendants and claims. Rule 20 permits defendants to be joined when the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and share a common legal or factual question. The court found that the six Ashland defendants and the single Sandstone defendant were connected to separate events and that the claims had nothing to do with one another.

The court also found that both parts of the complaint were frivolous. It held that the Ashland claims were untimely because the events occurred in 2016 and 2017, while the applicable Kentucky limitations period for constitutional-violation claims was one year. The court stated that the claims would also have been untimely under Minnesota’s six-year period. It further explained that pursuing administrative grievances did not delay the date on which the claims accrued. The court said that any possible Federal Tort Claims Act theory based on those events was also too late.

The court stated that the Sandstone claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, but had other problems. It said a similar due-process claim concerning the loss of time credits had already been rejected in an earlier round of Fiorito’s litigation. It also held that a request for monetary relief under Bivens—a limited remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officials—was not available for this due-process claim. The court noted that restoration of time credits could be sought only in a petition challenging custody, and that Fiorito had already sought that remedy in another case.

Prisoner screening and additional orders

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court screened the complaint because Fiorito was a prisoner seeking relief from government officials. The court stated that screening applies both to cases filed directly in federal court and to state-court cases later removed to federal court. It concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim, was frivolous because the claims lacked an arguable legal basis, and was malicious.

The court found that one factual allegation appeared to contradict evidence produced in Fiorito’s other litigation. Specifically, Fiorito alleged that he had always received a low risk-of-recidivism assessment until arriving at the Sandstone facility. The court said he had previously been given evidence contradicting that assertion and continued to make it. The court therefore ordered him to show cause within 21 days why the statement did not violate Rule 11(b)(3), which requires factual statements in pleadings to have evidentiary support. The defendants may reply within 14 days after Fiorito files his response.

The court also strengthened existing filing restrictions. Any new lawsuit Fiorito submits in the District of Minnesota, removes to that district, or transfers there must include a reasoned statement explaining why the claims could not have been raised in earlier litigation. The order states that failure to include that statement will result in immediate dismissal of the new action. The present case itself was dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and malicious.