Nkansah v. United States of America

Background

Felix Nkansah sued the United States and 36 unidentified Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. He alleged that agents mistreated him during his detention, retaliated against him after he complained about detention conditions and medical care, and failed to provide adequate treatment for injuries he said caused permanent nerve damage and continuing medical problems.

Nkansah alleged that he was arrested on December 17, 2014, and later detained at facilities in New Jersey, New York, Louisiana, and Alabama. He claimed that agents restrained and transported him in August 2015, causing or worsening injuries to his hands, feet, arms, and legs. He also alleged that he did not receive adequate treatment for nerve damage while held at the Etowah County Detention Center in Alabama. In addition, he alleged that property, including a laptop, cash, and a dog, was taken during his 2014 arrest and never recovered.

The United States’ motion

The United States moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when the court lacks authority to hear a claim, and Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. The motion addressed claims against the United States for constitutional violations, medical care in Alabama, false imprisonment or false arrest, and negligent mishandling of property.

The opinion states that the motion did not resolve the claims against the unidentified agents. The Government acknowledged that it did not represent those defendants, and the court declined to dismiss the claims against them on this motion.

Rulings

The court granted the motion as to Nkansah’s constitutional-tort claims against the United States. Nkansah conceded that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive the United States’ immunity from claims that federal employees violated the Constitution. The court therefore held that those claims could not proceed against the United States.

The court denied the motion as to claims concerning medical care that Nkansah received or should have received from outside providers during his detention at Etowah. The court concluded that the agreement between Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the local government did not show that all medical-care responsibilities had been transferred away from the federal government. Because the agreement left the United States financially responsible for outside care and gave it preapproval authority, and because factual questions remained about possible negligence by Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees, dismissal at that stage was inappropriate.

The court granted the motion as to the negligent-mishandling-of-property claim. The Federal Tort Claims Act generally requires an administrative claim to be presented within two years after the claim accrues. The court found that Nkansah had not alleged enough facts about when, how, or to whom he requested the return or accounting of his property to establish that the claim was timely or that the court had jurisdiction over it.

The court also granted the motion as to the false-imprisonment and false-arrest claims. The relevant state laws require detention to have been unlawful, without legal justification, or otherwise not privileged. The court found that Nkansah had not alleged facts challenging the lawfulness or privileged nature of his detention.

Disposition

The United States’ partial motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The opinion does not state that the granted claims were dismissed with or without prejudice. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket 21.