Henny v. United States of America

Background

Kimberly Ann Henny, a federal prisoner, sued the United States and federal prison officials in their individual and official capacities. She relied on the Federal Tort Claims Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4042, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3631–3635, and a damages claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. She alleged unsafe and improper conditions at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota, and requested $5.8 million in damages, a declaration that the defendants violated her rights, and orders requiring the facility to close or preventing transfers to facilities with similar conditions.

The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires early screening of prisoner lawsuits against government officials. At this stage, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Claim Allowed to Proceed

Henny alleged that she was exposed to synthetic cannabinoid, or K2, smoke in inadequately ventilated bathroom areas at the prison. She alleged that officials knew about her concerns but did not respond adequately, and that the exposure caused heart palpitations, high blood pressure, lung congestion, and neurological damage. The court recommended allowing her Federal Tort Claims Act negligence claim against the United States to proceed beyond initial screening. The court stated that this recommendation did not prevent the defendants from later seeking dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) or another applicable rule.

Claims the Court Recommended Dismissing

The court recommended dismissing Henny’s claims under 18 U.S.C. § 4042 because that statute describes general duties of the Bureau of Prisons but does not create a cause of action for damages.

The court recommended dismissing her claim under the CARES Act based on the Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to transfer her to home confinement. The court concluded that the Act gives eligible prisoners only the possibility of being considered for home confinement and does not require placement of any particular prisoner. It also concluded that the court lacked authority to order the Bureau of Prisons to place Henny in home confinement and that she had not identified a constitutional or federal-law violation supporting damages.

The court recommended dismissing her claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3631–3635 concerning housing assignments, risk levels, recidivism-reduction programming, and productive activities. It concluded that those provisions do not create a private right to sue and that prisoners do not have a constitutional or statutory entitlement to a particular security classification or rehabilitative program.

The court also recommended dismissing Henny’s Bivens claims. It explained that Bivens claims for damages may be brought only against federal officials in their individual capacities, not against the United States or officials in their official capacities. As to the individual-capacity claims, the complaint did not identify what each defendant personally did or failed to do. The court further noted that supervisors cannot be held liable merely because of their supervisory roles and that Henny had not alleged facts showing how any of the 31 defendants specifically exposed her to a risk of sexual assault or illicit-drug smoke.

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

The court recommended denying Henny’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. Henny had been transferred from FCI-Waseca to the Federal Prison Camp in Pekin, Illinois, so the court concluded that requests concerning the conditions at FCI-Waseca were moot. The court also concluded that a feared transfer to another facility with similar conditions was too speculative to support relief. In addition, the court stated that the Federal Tort Claims Act provides money damages, not injunctive or declaratory relief.

Recommendations and Orders

The Report and Recommendation recommended that the Federal Tort Claims Act negligence claim against the United States based on K2-smoke exposure be allowed to proceed, that the remaining claims—including all claims against defendants other than the United States—be dismissed without prejudice, and that the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief be denied.

In the accompanying order, Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster granted Henny’s application to proceed without paying the full filing fee at the outset. The order required her to submit a completed Marshal Service Form for the United States, directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the United States, and required her to pay the unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee in the manner provided by law. The document states that the Report and Recommendation was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit and that objections could be filed under the applicable local rule.