Marquez-Ortiz v. United States

Background

Jerylan Marquez-Ortiz brought a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which permits certain tort claims against the United States. He alleged that he slipped and fell on April 7, 2019, while he was an inmate at the Metropolitan Corrections Center. He was assigned to work as an orderly, noticed water leaking from pipes near the unit shower, and spoke with the head orderly about reporting the leak. While going to alert Officer Williams, as instructed, he slipped and fell down wet stairs. He alleged that the fall caused serious pain and other injuries, and that Metropolitan Corrections Center health-services officials worsened the injury by failing to order magnetic resonance imaging scans promptly.

The court had previously denied the United States’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, concluding that equitable tolling applied to the Federal Tort Claims Act claim. The pending motion instead challenged the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning its legal authority to hear the case.

Legal Standard

Under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must dismiss an action when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. When jurisdictional facts are disputed, the court may consider evidence outside the pleadings.

Discussion

The court held that the Inmate Accident Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for federal inmates who suffer injuries in work activity connected with maintaining or operating the institution where they are confined. Under that law and its implementing regulation, inmates covered by the Act cannot recover under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Demko and decisions from courts in the Second Circuit.

The court determined that Marquez-Ortiz’s claim fell within the Act. His deposition testimony established that he was working as an orderly when he was injured. The court also held that any later aggravation caused by the failure to order magnetic resonance imaging was covered because courts have treated the Act as the exclusive remedy for work-related aggravation caused by prison medical personnel.

The court rejected Marquez-Ortiz’s argument that the Federal Tort Claims Act offered an alternative remedy. It also rejected his argument that the motion was premature because he had not reviewed his deposition transcript within the time allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e). The court found that he had not timely requested to review the transcript before the deposition ended.

The court further rejected Marquez-Ortiz’s contention that he was acting as a good Samaritan, rather than working, when he went to report the leak. Because he offered no evidence contradicting his deposition testimony, the court concluded that he had not proved the jurisdictional facts needed to establish jurisdiction. The court also noted that a magistrate judge had previously found no good-faith basis for a motion concerning alleged failure to preserve a video of the accident, and that the court had affirmed that ruling. Finally, the court stated that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause does not apply in civil cases and that the hearsay rule did not affect the motion.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted the United States’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3). The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 88 and close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.