Crumble v. United States of America
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-04427
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Crumble v. United States, Judge Swain transferred some prison-care claims and allowed amendment of others, without deciding whether the claims were legally valid.
Michael Crumble; the United States of America; the individual defendants associated with FCI Schuylkill; and any FCI Otisville staff or warden who might be named in an amended complaint.
What happened
In Crumble v. United States, Michael Crumble, who is incarcerated, alleged that prison officials failed to provide adequate medical care. He brought claims involving the Federal Tort Claims Act, a remedy against the federal government for certain wrongdoing by federal employees; a judicial damages remedy against individual federal officials; and a law allowing prisoners to challenge how their federal sentences are carried out.
The court separated and transferred claims concerning events at FCI Schuylkill to the federal court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. It allowed Crumble 60 days to amend the claims concerning FCI Otisville by providing facts about administrative exhaustion, identifying individual officials if appropriate, naming the correct habeas respondent, and addressing exhaustion for his sentence-execution claims.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain did not decide whether Crumble’s claims were legally valid. She warned that failing to amend could lead to dismissal of the remaining claims, and she denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Crumble v. United States of America · No. 1:23-cv-04427
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 7, 2023
Background
Michael Crumble, proceeding without a lawyer, filed claims arising from his incarceration at the Federal Correctional Institution in Schuylkill, Pennsylvania, and the Federal Correctional Institution in Otisville, New York. The opinion describes claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which permits certain damages claims against the United States; a judicial damages remedy against individual federal officials; and 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which permits a federal prisoner to challenge the execution of a sentence. Crumble sought damages and declaratory relief and may also have sought adequate medical care or release to home confinement so he could obtain medical treatment at his own expense.
The court understood the complaint to include FTCA claims against the United States based on events at both facilities, claims against Warden Sage, Ms. Swaboski, Mr. Seffan, Ms. Loury, and Mr. Kubic based on events at FCI Schuylkill, possible claims against staff at FCI Otisville, and § 2241 claims concerning medical treatment at FCI Otisville.
Severance and transfer
The court determined that the claims based on events at FCI Schuylkill were unrelated to the claims based on events at FCI Otisville. Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it severed from this case:
- Crumble’s FTCA claims against the United States arising from events alleged to have occurred at FCI Schuylkill; and - his claims against Sage, Swaboski, Seffan, Loury, and Kubic arising from events alleged to have occurred at that facility.
The court transferred those severed claims to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). It reasoned that the alleged events occurred at FCI Schuylkill and that relevant documents and witnesses would likely be there. The court did not decide the merits of those claims.
Claims concerning FCI Otisville
As to the FTCA claims based on events at FCI Otisville, the court explained that a claimant generally must first submit an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency and receive a final written decision, or wait six months without a decision, before filing in federal court. Crumble alleged that he had filed a tort claim and exhausted his remedies, but he did not identify the agency, the filing date, whether the claim concerned FCI Otisville, or whether and when the government responded. The court therefore granted him leave to amend by alleging facts showing exhaustion.
The court also granted leave to amend possible claims against individual FCI Otisville staff. Crumble had not identified any such defendants or alleged facts showing their direct and personal involvement in constitutional violations.
The court treated Crumble’s request for adequate medical treatment or home confinement as a possible § 2241 challenge to the execution of his federal sentence. It held that he had not named the proper respondent. For a challenge to present physical confinement, the proper respondent is generally the warden of the facility where the prisoner is held, so the court granted leave to amend to name the warden of FCI Otisville.
The court further stated that a federal prisoner bringing a § 2241 claim challenging sentence execution must generally exhaust available administrative remedies. Because Crumble’s allegations did not clearly show exhaustion of the prison system’s remedies concerning his medical treatment at FCI Otisville, and did not explain why exhaustion should be excused, the court granted leave to amend on that issue as well.
Disposition
The court granted Crumble 60 days to file an amended complaint addressing the remaining claims. If he failed to amend or failed to show cause for not doing so, the court stated that it would direct entry of judgment dismissing the FTCA claims concerning FCI Otisville for sovereign immunity and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and dismissing the possible FCI Otisville claims under the individual-official damages remedy and the § 2241 claims without prejudice.
The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue for the § 2241 claims and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so permission to appeal without prepaying fees was denied. Judge Laura Taylor Swain did not reach the underlying merits of Crumble’s medical-care allegations.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.