Gamora v. Borough of Prisons

Background

Joshua Gamora, also known as Joshua Gumora, filed the action while incarcerated and without a lawyer. He alleged that, while detained at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, another prisoner sexually assaulted him after he was secretly given drugs. He also alleged that he had previously complained to the facility about drugs, that a screwdriver belonging to the facility was used in the assault, and that he later attempted suicide with a razor after being placed alone in a cell. The complaint identified the defendants as the Bureau of Prisons, listed as “Borough of Prisons,” “MCC Staff,” and the U.S. Department of Justice. He sought $5 million in damages.

Screening of the constitutional claims

The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to review prisoner complaints against government entities and dismiss claims that are legally insufficient, frivolous, or barred by immunity.

The court said the allegations against “MCC Staff” could be understood as asserting a claim under Bivens, an implied damages remedy against individual federal officers for certain constitutional violations. The court explained that a Bivens claim cannot be brought against a federal agency. It further explained that a pretrial detainee claiming that officials failed to protect him must allege both a serious risk of harm and that an individual officer knew or should have known about the risk but deliberately failed to act.

The court found the allegations insufficient at this stage. Gamora did not identify an individual employee who knew or should have known about a serious risk to him and deliberately disregarded it. His allegation that he complained about drugs did not explain what he said or whether it gave anyone notice of a risk of assault. His allegation about being left alone with a razor also did not make clear whether an individual knew about his suicidal thoughts and deliberately placed him in that situation. The court did not decide whether recent Supreme Court decisions would ultimately prevent a damages claim of this type under Bivens.

Potential claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act

The court considered whether the allegations could support a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a statute that waives the United States’ immunity for certain tort claims involving federal employees. The court stated that the proper defendant for such a claim is the United States, not the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Justice, or individual federal employees. It also stated that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not provide a remedy for constitutional violations.

Before filing a Federal Tort Claims Act case, a claimant generally must submit a written damages claim to the appropriate federal agency, including the amount sought, and complete the required administrative process. The court found it unclear whether Gamora had done so. Because that exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional, the court said a Federal Tort Claims Act claim could not proceed on the allegations then before it. The court allowed Gamora to amend and, if he asserts such a claim, to substitute the United States and allege facts showing full exhaustion.

Order and amendment instructions

The court granted Gamora leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must identify the individual defendants allegedly involved; Gamora may use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if he does not yet know a defendant’s name. It must also describe what each defendant did or failed to do, when and where the events occurred, his injuries, and the relief requested. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims he wants to preserve must be repeated.

The court stated that, if Gamora failed to comply without showing good cause, the constitutional claim would be dismissed for failure to state a claim and the Federal Tort Claims Act claim would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.