Ruiz v. United States

Background

Angel Ruiz proceeded without a lawyer and received permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. He sued the “Federal Police Department” under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. He alleged that, while waiting to pass through a metal detector at the 40 Foley Square federal courthouse, he had a severe seizure and fell. Ruiz alleged that five members of the “Federal Police” pushed his partner away and that one officer lifted him from his jacket, punched him in the hand and chest, and caused him to fall and injure his left shoulder. He also alleged that he remained on the floor for about 30 minutes before an ambulance took him to a hospital. He sought $10 million in damages.

The court stated that the “Federal Police Department” does not exist. It understood Ruiz to be attempting to sue the entity employing the officers, who might have been Court Security Officers or members of the United States Marshals Service. Because the claims arose from an incident at a federal courthouse, the court treated them as federal claims under federal-question jurisdiction rather than diversity jurisdiction.

Federal Tort Claims Act and sovereign immunity

The court explained that sovereign immunity generally prevents suits against the federal government and its agencies unless the government has waived that immunity. The Federal Tort Claims Act provides a limited waiver for certain tort claims involving federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Under that statute, the United States—not individual federal employees or federal agencies—is the proper defendant.

Before filing a damages action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a claimant generally must submit a written administrative claim to the appropriate federal entity, state the amount sought, and receive a final written determination, or wait six months without a final determination. Ruiz did not allege that he had filed such an administrative claim or received a final determination. The court found that his alleged letters to the court and a judge seeking an investigation did not show that he had submitted administrative claims specifying the amount of damages. The court therefore held that the Federal Tort Claims Act did not waive immunity on the allegations presented, and that claims construed as claims against the United States were barred by sovereign immunity.

Constitutional damages claims

The court considered whether Ruiz was attempting to bring a constitutional damages claim under Bivens, an implied remedy that can sometimes allow a person to seek damages from a federal official for a constitutional violation. The court emphasized that such claims must be brought against individual federal officials who are personally responsible; they cannot be brought against the United States, federal agencies, or private corporations and their employees.

Because Ruiz named no individual defendants subject to potential Bivens liability, the court dismissed any such damages claims for failure to state a claim. The court also stated that any possible Bivens claims appeared untimely. It explained that these claims generally use New York’s three-year personal-injury limitations period and that the alleged incident occurred before the limitations period for a complaint filed on August 18, 2023. The court further noted that claims against privately employed Court Security Officers or their private employer likely could not proceed under Bivens.

Disability-discrimination claim

The court construed Ruiz’s statement that his rights were violated because he was disabled as a possible claim under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. That law prohibits disability discrimination in covered federally funded programs or executive-agency activities. A claimant must allege, among other things, that he was a qualified person with a disability, that the defendants were covered by the statute, and that he was denied participation, benefits, or otherwise discriminated against because of the disability.

Even assuming Ruiz was disabled, the court found that he did not allege facts supporting an inference that the officers acted because of his disability. He did not allege discrimination through a facially neutral policy, a failure to accommodate, or other disability-based discrimination. The court therefore dismissed the disability claim for failure to state a claim. It also stated that the claim appeared to be barred by New York’s three-year limitations period, while allowing Ruiz to allege facts supporting equitable tolling, a doctrine that can extend a filing deadline in limited circumstances.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Ruiz 60 days to file an amended complaint. It identified possible allegations concerning exhaustion of a Federal Tort Claims Act claim, disability discrimination or failure to accommodate, state-law claims against Court Security Officers or their private employer, and facts supporting equitable tolling. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint rather than supplement it and must identify the defendants, relevant events, injuries, and requested relief.

In its conclusion, the court construed the claims as brought against the United States and directed the clerk to replace the “Federal Police Department” with the United States of America under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. It dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and as barred by sovereign immunity. It granted 60 days to amend, stated that no summons would issue at that time, and said judgment would be entered if Ruiz did not timely amend or show good cause. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.