Grossman v. United States of America

Background

Yitz Grossman filed this pro se action after an incident during his incarceration at F.C.I. Otisville Satellite Camp. He alleged that he is an Orthodox Jew whose religious beliefs prohibit writing and actively using electricity on the Sabbath and holidays. According to the complaint, Otisville policy postponed certain non-security random urinalysis and breathalyzer tests for observant Jews on the Sabbath and holidays.

Grossman alleged that on October 6, 2017, during a Friday night of Sukkot, Officer Ahamad Rezak ordered him to undergo a random urinalysis and breathalyzer. Grossman objected because the testing occurred during a Sabbath holiday. He alleged that Rezak said he did not care and threatened to place him in segregated housing if Grossman did not comply. Grossman sued the United States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Warden B. Von Blackensee, Captain Matt Whinery, Chris Entzel, Chaplain Avrohom Richter, J.L. Maldonado, and Rezak. He asserted claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the Constitution, seeking money damages.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint or part of a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers generously, those filings still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Federal Bureau of Prisons

The court dismissed the claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons because federal agencies generally have sovereign immunity, meaning they cannot be sued unless Congress has waived that protection. The court found that Grossman had not identified a waiver applicable to his claims.

Federal Tort Claims Act claims

The Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for certain injuries caused by federal employees acting within the scope of their work. Before filing such a claim in federal court, a plaintiff must first present it to the appropriate federal agency and complete the required administrative process. The court found no indication that Grossman had presented his tort claims to a federal agency.

The court also explained that the proper defendant for a Federal Tort Claims Act claim is the United States, not individual federal agencies or employees. In addition, the Act does not waive immunity for constitutional tort claims. The court found that Grossman had not alleged facts showing an ordinary tort and that his Religious Freedom Restoration Act and constitutional allegations were not claims available under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Constitutional claims

The court read Grossman’s constitutional allegations as potentially asserting a Bivens claim. Bivens is a limited damages remedy against federal officials for certain constitutional violations. Such a claim cannot be brought against the United States or against federal employees in their official capacities because those suits are treated as suits against the United States.

The court noted that the Supreme Court has recognized Bivens damages remedies in only three contexts: unreasonable searches and seizures, employment discrimination, and inadequate medical treatment of an inmate. The court stated that expanding Bivens is now disfavored and that it was unclear whether the alleged facts could support a viable Bivens claim against Rezak. The court found that the complaint did not provide sufficient facts against Blackensee, Whinery, Entzel, or Maldonado beyond alleging supervision of Rezak, or against Richter beyond alleging that he confirmed the sincerity of Grossman’s religious beliefs.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless the government proves that the burden advances a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so. The court assumed that Grossman’s allegations might state a claim against Rezak but found insufficient facts to state a claim against the other individual defendants.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint, except for Grossman’s claims against Rezak arising under Bivens and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, based on failure to state a claim and immunity grounds. The court granted Grossman leave to file an amended complaint addressing the problems identified in the order. The amended complaint had to be submitted within 60 days. If Grossman failed to amend, or if the amended complaint did not address those problems, the court stated that it would direct service only as to Rezak on the Bivens and Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims and would dismiss all other claims. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.