Roberts v. United States Marshall Service

Background

Jazmine I. Roberts brought the action without a lawyer and was granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. She alleged that, at the entrance of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, an unidentified United States Marshall employee instructed her to remove her boots even though she had not triggered an alarm. She also alleged that the employee questioned her about her personal property, refused to provide his name, and became aggressive. Roberts characterized the conduct as discrimination and harassment based on her creed, religion, race, marital status, appearance, and disability, and referred to the Americans with Disabilities Act. She sought punitive, consequential, incidental, nominal, and liquidated damages.

Legal standards

Because Roberts was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen her complaint. It had to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that a self-represented complaint is read liberally, but it still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible.

Claim against the United States Marshall Service

The court considered whether Roberts’s allegations could support a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a statute that waives the federal government’s immunity for certain torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Before filing such a claim in federal court, a person generally must first present a monetary claim to the appropriate federal agency and receive a final written decision. The opinion stated that there was no indication Roberts had completed that administrative process. The court therefore dismissed her claim against the United States Marshall Service under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Claim against the unidentified employee

The court treated Roberts’s constitutional claim against the unidentified employee as a damages claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. A Bivens claim is a limited type of lawsuit seeking damages from a federal official personally for violating constitutional rights. The court explained that such claims are generally unavailable against the United States or against federal employees sued in their official capacities.

The court further explained that the Supreme Court has recognized only three Bivens contexts: unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, employment discrimination under the Fifth Amendment, and inadequate medical treatment of an inmate under the Eighth Amendment. Roberts’s allegations that the employee questioned her about her property and refused to give his name did not fit any of those recognized contexts. The court also stated that her allegation of discrimination was conclusory because she provided no factual basis supporting it. The court therefore dismissed the claim against the unnamed employee for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The court declined to allow Roberts to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Roberts permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the order on July 27, 2022.