Schulte v. United States of America

Background

Joshua Adam Schulte, a former Central Intelligence Agency employee, had been detained since 2018 and was held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center under special administrative measures. He filed twelve related civil cases without a lawyer concerning the conditions of his confinement there. The court had previously dismissed his requests for injunctive relief as moot after his transfer to the Metropolitan Detention Center and had found that his claims under Bivens did not adequately allege the personal involvement of individual defendants.

The remaining claims sought damages from the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a statute that waives the government’s immunity from certain tort lawsuits. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). With limited-purpose pro bono counsel assisting him, Schulte conceded that several claims were not legally available under the Act but continued to pursue claims concerning: (1) plumbing problems and a sewage flood; (2) denial of indoor and outdoor recreation and blocked cell windows; (3) lights kept on in his cell around the clock; and (4) inadequate heat and air conditioning.

Claims Other Than Plumbing and Sewage

The court granted the motion as to all claims other than the plumbing and sewage claims. Schulte expressly abandoned the claims in eight of the twelve complaints. The court also ruled that the recreation, window, lighting, and temperature claims failed because the Federal Tort Claims Act requires a person incarcerated after a felony conviction to make a prior showing of physical injury when seeking damages for mental or emotional injury suffered in custody. Schulte alleged psychological damage, pain and suffering, and unspecified harm to his health, but the court concluded those allegations did not meet the physical-injury requirement.

Plumbing and Sewage Claims

The court denied dismissal of the plumbing and sewage claims. The government conceded that Schulte had alleged a physical injury because he claimed that a sewage flood made him violently ill for several days.

The court construed Schulte’s allegations as asserting negligence rather than only a constitutional tort. Under New York law, negligence requires a duty, a breach of that duty, and resulting injury. The court held that federal law required the Metropolitan Correctional Center to provide suitable quarters and care for inmates. Schulte plausibly alleged that the facility breached that duty by failing to repair sewage leaks and leaving him overnight in a cell flooded with sewage. Those allegations supplied the required private-law comparison for a Federal Tort Claims Act claim.

The court also rejected the government’s argument that detention conditions are a uniquely governmental function with no private comparison. Schulte challenged specific conditions that allegedly caused injury, not the fact or nature of his detention. The court further held that the discretionary-function exception did not require dismissal at this stage. That exception generally protects certain policy-based government decisions, but it does not protect a jail employee’s careless failure to perform discretionary duties. Schulte alleged constant sewer leaks, immediate notice to a corrections officer during the flood, and a failure by facility staff to respond, which plausibly supported that theory.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the government’s motion to dismiss as to Schulte’s sewage and plumbing claim and otherwise granted the motion. The court granted Schulte leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. The government was directed to answer or file a new motion to dismiss after any amendment, under the schedule stated in the order. The clerk was directed to terminate the government’s motion and mail Schulte a copy of the opinion and order.