Geritano v. AUSA Office for The E.D.N.Y.

Background

Geritano's action concerned medical care he received at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City. He alleged that the Federal Bureau of Prisons provided him with the prescribed medication ranitidine twice daily from May 2017 through March 2019. He claimed that the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Food and Drug Administration knew the drug contained a cancer-causing substance but continued providing it as a lower-cost option instead of Zantac.

The court had previously dismissed claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons on sovereign-immunity grounds, meaning the agency generally could not be sued for damages in that manner. The court also treated the complaint as asserting a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act and dismissed that claim without prejudice because Geritano had not alleged that he exhausted his administrative remedies with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The court gave him permission to amend his complaint to state a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Court's analysis

The court applied the screening requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Those requirements call for dismissal of a qualifying complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks relief from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but they still must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

A Bivens claim is a claim seeking damages from an individual federal officer for an alleged constitutional violation. The court explained that such a claim cannot be brought against a federal agency or against federal officials in their official capacities. Geritano's amended complaint named no individual defendants and alleged no facts showing that a particular federal officer personally participated in violating his constitutional rights. The court therefore concluded that he failed to state a Bivens claim and dismissed it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

The court separately addressed the Federal Tort Claims Act claim. To seek relief against the federal government under that law, a claimant must first exhaust administrative remedies with the relevant agency. Because Geritano again did not allege that he had completed that process, the court dismissed the Federal Tort Claims Act claim without prejudice. The court's footnote also stated that the United States, rather than the federal agency, is the proper defendant in a Federal Tort Claims Act action.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action under the prisoner-complaint screening statute. It dismissed the Bivens claim for failure to state a claim and dismissed the Federal Tort Claims Act claim without prejudice for failure to allege administrative exhaustion. The opinion did not decide whether the alleged medical treatment violated the Constitution or the Federal Tort Claims Act on the merits. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Geritano and record service on the docket.