Jackson v. Stewart

Background

Taurean O’KeITH Jackson filed this case without a lawyer and was permitted to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. He alleged that “A. Stewart,” whom he described as a female nurse practitioner, sexually assaulted him while working in the medical department at FCI Otisville. He also alleged that, after he was transferred to FCI Allenwood, correctional staff denied him access to the law library, refused to process his grievances, and denied him nutritional food. He named A. Stewart and the Bureau of Prisons as defendants.

The complaint asserted three claims arising at FCI Allenwood: denial of law-library access, interference with the prison grievance system, and lack of nutritional food. Jackson also sought to bring claims concerning the alleged sexual assault at FCI Otisville.

Claims Against the Bureau of Prisons

The court dismissed Jackson’s claims against the Bureau of Prisons under sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity generally prevents lawsuits against the United States, its agencies, and federal officers sued in their official capacities unless the government has consented to be sued. The court concluded that the Bureau of Prisons had not waived that immunity for the claims asserted in this action.

The court explained that the Federal Tort Claims Act may waive immunity for certain tort claims against the United States, but the proper defendant in such a case is the United States, not the Bureau of Prisons or an individual federal employee. The court also stated that an administrative claim must first be exhausted. Because the alleged Allenwood events occurred in Pennsylvania, the court identified the Middle District of Pennsylvania as a proper venue for a new Federal Tort Claims Act action based on those events. The opinion also noted that Jackson could potentially file such an action in the district where he lived before incarceration, but the opinion did not state where that was.

Claims Arising at FCI Allenwood

The court dismissed without prejudice the constitutional claims arising at FCI Allenwood. It found that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York because the alleged events occurred in Pennsylvania and Jackson had not named defendants who violated his constitutional rights at Allenwood. The court declined to transfer those claims and stated that Jackson could assert them in a new action in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Claims Against A. Stewart

The court assumed, for purposes of the order, that A. Stewart was a federal employee and treated the potential constitutional claim as one under Bivens, a judicially recognized claim for damages against certain federal officials for constitutional violations. The court stated that Jackson’s allegations did not clearly fit the limited categories in which the Supreme Court has recognized such a claim. It also discussed the Federal Tort Claims Act’s treatment of assault claims involving federal employees who are not investigative or law-enforcement officers.

The court nevertheless found it premature to decide that Jackson could not proceed against Stewart. It stated that it was unclear whether Congress had addressed whether a damages remedy should exist for the alleged sexual assault by a nurse practitioner at a federal facility. The court therefore granted Jackson leave to provide more facts, including confirmation of the date of the alleged assault, additional details about what happened, and, if known, whether Stewart was a federal employee at that time.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Jackson 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must repeat any facts or claims Jackson wants the court to consider. The court directed him to identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. No summons would issue at that time.

The order states that failure to amend within the permitted time, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

Judge

The order was signed by Laura Taylor Swain, Chief United States District Judge.