Torim v. United States of America

Background

Shloime Torim filed this action without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. He alleged that the United States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Warden B. Von Blackensee, Captain Matt Whinery, Chris Entzel, Chaplain Avrohom Richter, J.L. Maldonado, and Officer Ahamad Rezak, also identified as Ahmed Rezak, violated his federally protected rights during his incarceration at F.C.I. Otisville Satellite Camp. The opinion states that Torim was no longer in custody when he filed the complaint.

Torim alleged that he is an orthodox Jew and that his religious beliefs prohibit him from writing and actively using electricity during the Sabbath and holidays. He also alleged that Otisville policy postponed certain random urine and breath tests for observant Jewish prisoners during the Sabbath and holidays. According to the complaint, on October 6, 2017, during a Friday night of Sukkot, Rezak, allegedly acting under the direction of Blackensee, Whinery, Entzel, and Maldonado, ordered Torim to submit to a random urine test and breath test. Torim objected, but Rezak allegedly said he did not care and threatened to place Torim in segregated housing if he refused.

Screening standard

The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint or claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Because Torim was representing himself, the court was required to read his allegations liberally and consider the strongest claims reasonably suggested by them. But the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make the claims plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons

The court held that sovereign immunity barred Torim’s claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Sovereign immunity generally prevents lawsuits against the federal government and its agencies unless Congress has waived that protection. The court concluded that Torim had not identified a waiver applicable to his claims and dismissed the claims against the Bureau under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

Federal Tort Claims Act claims

Torim also invoked the Federal Tort Claims Act, a statute that waives some federal immunity for certain torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The court explained that a claimant ordinarily must first present the claim for money damages to the appropriate federal agency and receive a final written decision, or wait six months without one, before filing in federal court.

The court found no indication that Torim had presented his tort claims to a federal agency. It also explained that the proper defendant under the Act is the United States, not an individual federal agency, and that the Act covers torts comparable to those recognized under state law. Torim had not alleged facts showing an ordinary tort, and the Act does not waive immunity for constitutional tort claims. The court therefore concluded that Torim had not stated a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Constitutional damages claim

The court construed the complaint as potentially asserting a Bivens claim, meaning a damages claim against a federal official for violating the Constitution. Bivens claims may not be brought against the United States or against federal employees in their official capacities because those claims are treated as claims against the United States and are barred by sovereign immunity.

The court also explained that the Supreme Court has recognized Bivens damages remedies in only three settings: unreasonable search and seizure, employment discrimination, and inadequate medical treatment of an inmate. The Supreme Court has described expanding that remedy as disfavored. The court stated that it was unclear whether Torim’s allegations against Rezak could support a viable Bivens claim. It found, however, that the complaint contained no sufficient factual allegations against Blackensee, Whinery, Entzel, Maldonado, or Richter. The allegations against the first four officials concerned only supervision of Rezak, while the allegation against Richter was that he confirmed the sincerity of Torim’s religious beliefs.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless the government shows that the burden advances a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive way to advance that interest. Torim sought money damages under RFRA.

The court stated that, even assuming the allegations could support a RFRA claim against Rezak, Torim had not provided enough facts to state a RFRA claim against the other individual defendants. The court did not dismiss the potential RFRA claim against Rezak at this stage.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint, except for Torim’s claims against Rezak arising under Bivens and RFRA, for failure to state a claim and on immunity grounds. It granted Torim leave to file an amended complaint addressing the problems identified in the order. Torim was required to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days and label it “Amended Complaint.” No summons would issue at that time.

The court stated that if Torim did not file an amended complaint, or if the amended complaint did not address the identified issues, the Clerk would issue a summons and order service solely against Rezak on the Bivens and RFRA claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. Judge Nelson S. Roman ordered the Clerk to mail the order to Torim and record service on the docket.