FanFan v. M.C.C.

Background

Jimmy Fanfan, who was incarcerated at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), brought this case without a lawyer, alleging that he had been denied adequate medical care. He proceeded under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, although the opinion noted that prisoners remain responsible for paying the full filing fee over time.

Screening standard

The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to review prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or their officers or employees. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make the claimed entitlement to relief plausible.

Claims against MCC and the Federal Bureau of Prisons

The court held that federal sovereign immunity protected MCC and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) from suit. The court therefore dismissed Fanfan’s claims against MCC and BOP without prejudice.

Federal Tort Claims Act claim

The court construed the complaint as asserting a claim for money damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) based on alleged negligence in providing medical treatment. The FTCA generally allows certain claims for injuries caused by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment, but the United States—not individual federal agencies or employees—is the proper defendant. Before filing an FTCA lawsuit, a claimant must submit a money-damages claim to the appropriate federal agency and receive the agency’s final written decision.

The court found no facts showing that Fanfan had submitted an FTCA claim to the BOP or received a final written decision. It dismissed the FTCA claim without prejudice to filing an FTCA action against the United States after completing the required administrative process.

Constitutional claims against individual defendants

The court construed Fanfan’s allegations that federal employees violated his constitutional rights as claims under Bivens, a doctrine allowing certain damages claims against federal officials for constitutional violations. For such a claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege both a constitutional violation by an official acting under federal authority and the official’s direct personal involvement.

The court explained that an Eighth Amendment inadequate-medical-care claim by a federal pretrial detainee requires facts showing a sufficiently serious medical deprivation and that the defendant knew, or should have known, that failing to provide treatment created a substantial health risk.

Except for Dr. Daniel Kaufman, the complaint did not adequately allege the defendants’ personal involvement. Fanfan alleged that Lopes Hygor gave him the wrong medication and attached a document identifying Cheryl Ancrum as his provider and Robert Beaudouin as the reviewer of his medical record. The court found those allegations insufficient. The complaint contained no allegations against Joaquin Y. or Singh Mandeep.

The court dismissed without prejudice Fanfan’s Bivens claims against Robert Beaudouin, Joaquin Y., Cheryl Ancrum, Lopes Hygor, and Singh Mandeep. It allowed Fanfan, by March 12, 2021, to send a letter requesting permission to replead and to attach a proposed amended complaint explaining how those defendants were personally involved. The order states that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the claims against them.

Service on Dr. Kaufman and other directives

The court found that the complaint provided enough information for the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to identify Dr. Kaufman. It ordered that office to obtain and provide Dr. Kaufman’s service address to Fanfan and the court within 60 days. The court would then direct the Clerk of Court and the United States Marshals Service to complete service documents and serve Dr. Kaufman.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order and complaint to the United States Attorney’s Office and to Fanfan. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.

Disposition

The order dismissed without prejudice Fanfan’s claims against MCC and BOP, dismissed without prejudice his FTCA claim, and dismissed without prejudice his Bivens claims against Robert Beaudouin, Joaquin Y., Cheryl Ancrum, Lopes Hygor, and Singh Mandeep. The order did not dismiss the claims against Dr. Kaufman at that stage; instead, it directed steps to identify his service address.