Gottesfeld v. Horwitz

Background

Pro se plaintiff Martin S. Gottesfeld sued Acting Deputy Director David Anderson, Warden Esker L. Tatum, Medical Director Anthony Bussonich, and Acting Director Hugh J. Hurwitz. He alleged that, while held as a pretrial detainee at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan from November 2016 through February 2017, he was placed in the Special Housing Unit during a hunger strike and subjected to poor conditions. His allegations included vermin, cold temperatures, leaking water, limited visits, interference with mail and media access, and threats of force-feeding.

Gottesfeld asserted constitutional claims under Bivens, a doctrine that can permit damages claims against federal employees for constitutional violations. The court also read the complaint to raise claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act and considered his New York constitutional claims as claims under Bivens or the Federal Tort Claims Act. In his opposition, Gottesfeld also argued that the complaint could support a False Claims Act claim.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Defendants argued that the claims should be dismissed because Gottesfeld did not exhaust required administrative remedies. Because nonexhaustion was not clear from the complaint’s face, the court converted that portion of the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. The court found that Gottesfeld had received adequate notice of the conversion and that discovery was unnecessary because the relevant facts about his exhaustion efforts were not disputed.

The court held that Gottesfeld did not properly exhaust his prison grievances. He submitted two handwritten complaints shortly before leaving the facility, but one concerned an unrelated law-library incident. The other concerned mail to a Rolling Stone reporter, but the court found that grievance untimely because the underlying issue arose in December 2016 and Gottesfeld did not request a grievance form until January 20, 2017, more than 20 days later. The court also found that Gottesfeld filed no written grievance concerning his other confinement-condition allegations. His assertion that staff refused to provide grievance forms did not change the result because he did not allege that any named defendant was personally involved in that refusal, and the court held that denial of forms alone did not make administrative remedies unavailable.

The court separately held that any Federal Tort Claims Act claim was barred for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Gottesfeld had not filed an administrative tort claim concerning the events. The court therefore granted defendants summary judgment on the Bivens and Federal Tort Claims Act claims, and it construed the New York constitutional claims as arising under those same theories and granted defendants summary judgment on them for the same exhaustion reasons.

Bivens claims

The court ruled alternatively that the Bivens claims failed under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. The complaint did not allege that Hurwitz or Anderson knew about or personally participated in the conditions at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. The court therefore found the claims against them insufficient.

As to Bussonich, the court held that the alleged threat of force-feeding was a verbal threat and did not itself establish a constitutional violation. The court noted that Gottesfeld did not allege that he was actually force-fed. As to Tatum, the court held that denying media interviews did not violate the First Amendment where other communication channels remained available. It also found that Gottesfeld suffered no legally recognizable harm from the alleged mail interference because he ultimately communicated with the reporter and a lengthy Rolling Stone article was published. The court concluded that the complaint did not adequately allege that any defendant was personally involved in conduct constituting a constitutional violation.

False Claims Act claim

The court also dismissed any False Claims Act claim under Rule 12(b)(6). It held that the complaint sought relief for injuries to Gottesfeld, rather than seeking to vindicate rights belonging to the federal government. In addition, the allegations that officials sought assignments that could maximize pension benefits did not identify specific fraudulent statements or false claims submitted to the government and therefore did not plausibly state a claim.

Leave to amend and final disposition

The court denied leave to amend because the exhaustion deficiencies could not be cured by rewriting the complaint and the False Claims Act allegations were speculative. It also denied Gottesfeld’s requests to add proposed defendants, reasoning that the proposed high-ranking officials were not alleged to be personally involved and that claims concerning staff at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute were outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Judge Gardephe’s conclusion states that defendants’ motion was granted and Gottesfeld’s claims were dismissed. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion, close the case, and mail the order to Gottesfeld. Pending motions were denied as moot. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.