Turner v. Lincon-Vitale

Background

Wilbert K.A. Turner brought this pro se action while incarcerated at the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York. He sought damages and release into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He named Warden M. Lincon-Vitale and Attorney General William Barr as defendants. The court had granted Turner permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Claims and party analysis

The court construed Turner’s damages claims as claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. A Bivens claim is a judicially created damages remedy against federal officials sued in their individual capacities for alleged constitutional violations. The court understood those claims to arise from Warden Lincon-Vitale’s actions, not Attorney General Barr’s actions, because Turner did not allege that Barr injured him.

The court construed Turner’s request for release into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the execution of his federal sentence. The court stated that Warden Lincon-Vitale, as Turner’s immediate custodian, was the proper respondent for that claim rather than Attorney General Barr.

Rulings

The court dismissed Turner’s claims against Attorney General Barr under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 because Barr was not a proper party to any claim alleged in the complaint. The court did not dismiss the claims against Warden Lincon-Vitale at this stage.

Because Turner was allowed to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court directed the clerk to issue a summons for Warden Lincon-Vitale, complete the required service form, mark it for service on the United States, and send the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court extended the service period until 90 days after the summons was issued and stated that Turner could request more time if service was not completed within that period.

Judge Lewis Liman also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order was a procedural ruling concerning the proper parties and service; it did not decide whether Turner was entitled to damages or release.