Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 8, 2022

Irizarry v. Manhattan Correctional Center

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:21-cv-05170
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil RightsTortCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Irizarry v. Manhattan Correctional Center, Judge Swain dismissed the Federal Tort Claims Act claims without prejudice and dismissed the Bivens claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Who this affects

Jorge Irizarry’s Federal Tort Claims Act and Bivens claims were dismissed; the Federal Tort Claims Act claims were dismissed without prejudice, while the judgment does not specify a prejudice qualifier for the Bivens claims.

What happened

In Irizarry v. Manhattan Correctional Center, the court entered judgment after an order dated February 8, 2022, dismissed the amended complaint, and addressed claims brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act and Bivens.

The court dismissed the Federal Tort Claims Act claims without prejudice because Irizarry had not exhausted administrative remedies. It dismissed the Bivens claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and directed the clerk to mail Irizarry a copy of the judgment.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain, the chief United States district judge, signed the judgment on February 8, 2022.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Irizarry v. Manhattan Correctional Center · No. 1:21-cv-05170
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Feb. 8, 2022

Background

The judgment follows an order issued on February 8, 2022, that dismissed Irizarry’s amended complaint. The judgment identifies two categories of claims: claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act and claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Rulings

The court dismissed the Federal Tort Claims Act claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. “Without prejudice” means the judgment does not state that those claims are permanently barred from being brought again.

The court dismissed the Bivens claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The judgment does not provide the factual or legal explanation for that dismissal beyond citing the statute.

Other Orders

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It also ordered the clerk to mail Irizarry a copy of the judgment and record service on the docket. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.