Heyward v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Background

Michael Cornelius Heyward, who was detained at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer. He brought claims under Bivens, a limited federal constitutional damages remedy, and referred to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His allegations concerned COVID-19 policies and other conditions at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, including lockdowns, placement in segregated housing, limited phone and email access, lack of visitation, double-bunking, staff allegedly failing to follow protective protocols, and alleged exposure to infected people. He also alleged that he received inadequate treatment for waterbug bites and asserted Fifth Amendment due-process claims concerning restrictions that he said were imposed without disciplinary charges or hearings. He sought injunctive relief and money damages.

Screening standard

The court reviewed the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires screening of prisoner complaints against governmental entities. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. Although courts must read complaints filed without lawyers generously, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible and must identify the defendants’ alleged conduct.

Rulings

The court held that the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Metropolitan Correctional Center were protected by sovereign immunity, meaning the court generally could not hear claims against those federal agencies without a valid waiver. The court therefore dismissed those defendants from the action.

The court treated Heyward’s allegations about confinement conditions and medical care as also potentially asserting a claim for money damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act. That statute permits certain suits against the United States for wrongful conduct by federal employees, but requires the claimant first to submit an administrative money-damages claim to the appropriate agency and receive a final written decision. Because Heyward alleged only that he had filed grievances at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, and did not allege that he had completed the required process with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the court dismissed this claim without prejudice to filing an action against the United States after exhausting the administrative remedies.

The court did not dismiss all possible constitutional claims. Because Heyward alleged denial of medical care, the court explained that a Bivens claim may be available in the recognized context of inadequate medical treatment of a federal prisoner. In light of his status as a self-represented litigant, the court granted him leave to amend so that he could name the individual correctional staff members whom he claimed violated the Eighth Amendment. The court also granted leave to allege facts supporting injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure federal prisoners may use to challenge conditions of confinement when seeking such relief.

Amended complaint requirements

The court directed Heyward to identify each defendant in both the caption and the statement of claim. If he did not know a defendant’s name, he could use a John Doe or Jane Doe designation, but the court stated that doing so would not stop the three-year limitations period from running. The amended complaint had to explain what each defendant did or failed to do, when and where the conduct occurred, how it violated Heyward’s federal rights, what injuries resulted, and what relief he sought. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

Disposition

The court granted Heyward leave to file an amended complaint asserting Bivens claims within 60 days and directed that it be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit with the assigned docket number. No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that, absent a showing of good cause, failure to comply could result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The order also dismissed the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Metropolitan Correctional Center from the action.

The opinion text states that the order was dated November 10, 2020, while the supplied case metadata lists November 12, 2020 as the filing date.