Mouzon v. United States of America

Background

Robbie Mouzon, who is incarcerated at FCI Otisville and is representing himself, brought claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents and the Federal Tort Claims Act. He alleged that the defendants’ negligence, failure to train, and failure to protect caused him severe injuries, and that the defendants denied him adequate medical attention. The defendants named in the complaint were the United States of America; the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons; Carlett Peters; A. Boncher; B. Reese; J. Jamison; FNU Rossi; FNU Keahon; FNU Churchill; and Ellen Leibson Mace.

The court had previously granted Mouzon permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court was required to screen the complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally viable claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Ruling on the Bureau of Prisons

The court dismissed Mouzon’s claims against the Bureau of Prisons under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity generally prevents federal courts from hearing lawsuits against the federal government and its agencies unless the government has waived that protection. The court cited the federal screening statute authorizing dismissal of claims seeking monetary relief from an immune defendant.

Service on Other Defendants

The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and complete the required U.S. Marshals Service forms for the United States of America, Carlett Peters, A. Boncher, B. Reese, J. Jamison, FNU Rossi, FNU Keahon, FNU Churchill, and Ellen Leibson Mace. Because Mouzon was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the U.S. Marshals Service was directed to handle service.

The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued. It said Mouzon should request an extension if service is not completed within that period. He was also required to notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

Appeal and Disposition

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Judge Philip M. Halpern dismissed the claims against the Bureau of Prisons and ordered service on the other listed defendants.