Henny v. United States of America

Background

Kimberly Ann Henny sued the United States and numerous Federal Bureau of Prisons officials and employees in their individual and official capacities. Her claims concerned alleged conditions and misconduct at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota, including exposure to sexual-assault risks and synthetic cannabinoid smoke. She also raised claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4042, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3631–3635, the Eighth Amendment, and the doctrine established by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing all claims except Henny’s Federal Tort Claims Act negligence claim against the United States based on alleged exposure to synthetic cannabinoid smoke. Henny objected. The district court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation and adopted it.

Reasons for the Ruling

The court concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 4042 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 3631–3635 do not provide Henny with a private right to sue. Alleged violations of those statutes also did not automatically establish an Eighth Amendment violation. The court explained that an Eighth Amendment claim requires more than ordinary carelessness toward a prisoner’s safety and found that the conduct described by Henny did not meet that standard.

The court also rejected Henny’s claim that the Bureau of Prisons should have transferred prisoners to home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic. It found that she did not identify a particular serious medical need or vulnerability that prison officials had deliberately ignored. The court further ruled that Henny’s Bivens claims could not proceed because she did not adequately allege personal misconduct by any of the 32 individual defendants. The court stated that Bivens applies to individual-capacity claims, not official-capacity claims, and that extending it to claims concerning staffing levels and resulting prison conditions would be an expansion that lower courts should not make.

Because Henny was no longer incarcerated at the Waseca facility, the court ruled that her requests for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot or could not redress a past injury. The court also noted that the Federal Tort Claims Act claim against the United States permits money damages, not equitable relief.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court dismissed without prejudice all of Henny’s claims except her Federal Tort Claims Act negligence claim against the United States concerning alleged exposure to synthetic cannabinoid smoke. It dismissed without prejudice all defendants except the United States and denied Henny’s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. The remaining Federal Tort Claims Act claim was allowed to proceed, subject to the defendants’ ability to seek its dismissal.