Jenkins v. United States of America

Background

Betty Lee Jenkins filed the action while incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution Waseca. She alleged harms including worsening blindness from inadequate eye care, health effects from exposure to synthetic cannabinoid, increased risks of physical and sexual assault, and inadequate programming. She sued the United States, Bureau of Prisons officials, and Federal Correctional Institution Waseca staff.

Jenkins asserted negligence claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, claims that the Bureau of Prisons violated duties described in 18 U.S.C. §§ 4042 and 3632, and constitutional damages claims against federal officials under Bivens. Her Bivens claims alleged failure to protect her from harmful exposure and physical or sexual abuse, and deliberate indifference to her serious medical need for eye surgery. She requested money damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing all claims without prejudice except the Federal Tort Claims Act negligence claims against the United States. The recommendation also advised denying declaratory and injunctive relief because the Federal Tort Claims Act provides money damages. Jenkins objected to the recommended dismissal.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed Jenkins’s specific objections independently and reviewed the remaining issues for clear error. It noted that Jenkins was representing herself and that her filings were therefore read liberally, but she still had to satisfy substantive and procedural legal requirements.

The court declined to recognize a Bivens claim for failure to protect. It concluded that this claim was meaningfully different from the limited categories of Bivens claims recognized by the Supreme Court and that extending the remedy was inappropriate, particularly because Congress had not authorized that claim and Jenkins could seek relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The court recognized that deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition can support a Bivens claim. However, although Jenkins’s eye condition was objectively serious, the complaint did not identify specific defendants who knew about her condition and deliberately disregarded it. The court also declined to consider new allegations made only in Jenkins’s objections. It stated that, even if those allegations were considered, they described at most general accusations and one surgery rescheduling attributed to a security breach, which was insufficient to show deliberate indifference.

The court also held that 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(2)–(3) establishes standards for the Bureau of Prisons but does not create a private right to sue. It therefore dismissed Jenkins’s claim under that statute. The court adopted the recommendation on the remaining issues, including dismissal of claims against the United States and other defendants in their official capacities under Bivens.

Disposition

The court overruled Jenkins’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, and dismissed Jenkins’s complaint without prejudice, except for her negligence claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States. The order did not dismiss those remaining claims.