Bravo v. Garland

Background

Luis Bravo filed the action against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and two unnamed members of the United States Marshals Service (USMS). He paid the filing fee and was representing himself. The opinion construed his allegations that federal employees violated his constitutional rights as claims under Bivens, which can allow damages claims against federal officials for certain constitutional violations.

Bravo alleged that two USMS members arrested him in the Dominican Republic and abandoned him there, placing him in great danger and causing sickness and injuries. The opinion states in one section that the alleged arrest occurred on September 23, 2021, but later refers to September 23, 2019.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it could dismiss a paid complaint if it was frivolous, if the court lacked authority to hear it, or if it failed to state a legally sufficient claim. It also said that pleadings filed by people without lawyers must be read generously.

The court dismissed Bravo’s claims against Garland because Bravo did not allege facts showing Garland’s personal involvement in the events. A supervisor or employer generally cannot be held responsible merely because someone working under that person allegedly violated a plaintiff’s rights. The dismissal was without prejudice to Bravo naming Garland in an amended complaint if he can allege Garland’s personal involvement.

Because Bravo had not named the two USMS members he alleged were involved, the court directed the Clerk of Court to add “John Doe 1, USMS” and “John Doe 2, USMS” as defendants under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court stated that this addition was without prejudice to any defenses those defendants might assert.

Under a procedure requiring assistance in identifying unnamed defendants, the court ordered the U.S. Attorney’s Office—described in the opinion as the attorney for and agent of the USMS—to determine each John Doe defendant’s identity, badge number, and service address. The office must provide that information to Bravo and the court within 60 days of the order. Within 30 days after receiving the information, Bravo must file an amended complaint naming the defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court said it would screen that amended complaint and, if necessary, direct service on the defendants.

Disposition

The court dismissed without prejudice Bravo’s claims against Garland. It directed the Clerk of Court to add the two John Doe USMS defendants and ordered the identification process described above. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Bravo permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.