Torres v. Licon-Vitale

Background

Jonathan Torres filed the action without a lawyer while detained at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. He sued Warden M. Licon-Vitale, former Acting Warden Shirley Skipper-Scott, Captain Biez, and a John Doe correction officer. He alleged that a correction officer brought a gun into the facility and gave it to an inmate described as a known gang member. The facility then went into lockdown from March 2 through March 6, 2020, ending after correction officers found the loaded gun.

Torres alleged that the gun incident traumatized him and that the lockdown deprived him of showers and cleaning supplies for five days and limited him to one hot meal a day. He also alleged that he was housed with inmates who were sick and taken to hospitals with possible COVID-19 symptoms. Separately, he alleged that he fell from a bunk without a ladder and then waited two months for treatment for back pain, a swollen jaw, and a broken tooth. He did not specify the relief he wanted.

Screening and constitutional claims

The court screened the complaint under the statutes governing complaints filed by prisoners against governmental entities or their employees. Because the defendants were federal employees, the court treated the constitutional claims as claims under Bivens, which allows certain damages claims against federal officials for constitutional violations. The court explained that the Supreme Court has recognized Bivens claims in only three contexts: unreasonable searches and seizures, certain employment-discrimination claims, and inadequate medical treatment of inmates. Extending that remedy to a new context requires consideration of special factors that may counsel against creating a damages remedy.

The court treated the gun incident as a possible failure-to-protect claim and the lockdown allegations as conditions-of-confinement claims. It stated that district courts in the circuit had treated both types of claims as new Bivens contexts and had found special factors counseling against extending the remedy. The court also stated that Torres had not alleged that any defendant was personally involved in starting the lockdown or denying him showers, cleaning supplies, or adequate meals. As to the John Doe officer, Torres did not allege that the officer knew or should have known about Torres’s mental-health history or acted with deliberate indifference to his trauma.

The court separately considered the inadequate-medical-care claim. It explained that a federal pretrial detainee may bring a constitutional claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and must allege both a sufficiently serious medical condition and that an official intentionally or recklessly failed to act with reasonable care despite knowing, or having reason to know, of an excessive risk to the detainee’s health or safety. The court found that Torres had not alleged facts showing that any named defendant was personally involved in denying him medical care or acted with deliberate indifference. It granted him leave to replead that claim by identifying the officers involved and describing what each officer did.

Federal Tort Claims Act claim

The court also construed the complaint as asserting damages claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a statute that can waive the federal government’s immunity for certain torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Before filing such a claim in federal court, a claimant must submit a written damages claim to the appropriate federal agency and receive a final written decision. The court found no facts indicating that Torres had filed such a claim with the Bureau of Prisons or received a final written decision. It therefore dismissed the Federal Tort Claims Act claim. The court stated that any amended Federal Tort Claims Act claim must allege exhaustion and name the United States as a defendant.

Disposition and amendment instructions

The court granted Torres sixty days to file an amended complaint. The amended pleading must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must include the facts and claims he wants to pursue. It must identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations when possible, explain the alleged injuries, and state the relief requested. The court directed Torres to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 20-CV-3787 (LLS). No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that failure to comply, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.