Germaine v. United States
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-01305
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Germaine v. United States, Judge Halpern granted the partial dismissal, ending two claims while allowing an FTCA negligence claim to proceed.
Justin L. Germaine, the United States, and the individual defendants James Gibb, Ricardo Rosado, Joshua Hager, Kevin Smith, and Lieutenant John Doe.
What happened
In Germaine v. United States, Justin L. Germaine sued federal defendants over alleged medical care and negligence. He represented himself and brought claims for deliberate indifference to medical needs, medical malpractice, and negligence.
The defendants sought dismissal of the deliberate-indifference and medical-malpractice claims. Germaine voluntarily dismissed several individual defendants and the medical-malpractice claim, and asked to dismiss the deliberate-indifference claim as well.
Judge Halpern granted the partial motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the deliberate-indifference and medical-malpractice claims, terminated the individual defendants, and allowed Germaine’s negligence claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act to proceed to discovery.
The detailed version
- Germaine v. United States · No. 7:23-cv-01305
- Philip Halpern
- May 15, 2024
Background
Justin L. Germaine, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought this action against James Gibb, Ricardo Rosado, Joshua Hager, Kevin Smith, Special Investigative Service Lieutenant John Doe, and the United States. His second amended complaint asserted three claims: deliberate indifference to medical needs under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics; medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act; and negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The Motion and the Parties’ Positions
The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or alternatively for summary judgment under Rule 56. The motion sought dismissal only of the Bivens claim and the Federal Tort Claims Act medical-malpractice claim. In his response, Germaine voluntarily dismissed Gibb, Rosado, Hager, and Smith, withdrew the medical-malpractice claim against the medical staff at FCI Ray Brook, and requested dismissal of the Bivens and medical-malpractice claims. The court noted that the defendants did not concede liability on the negligence claim merely because that claim was not addressed in their motion.
Ruling
Judge Halpern granted the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss on the parties’ consent. The court dismissed Germaine’s deliberate-indifference claim and Federal Tort Claims Act medical-malpractice claim. His negligence claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States remained pending and was ordered to proceed to discovery, with the United States required to answer the second amended complaint by May 31, 2024.
The court also dismissed Lieutenant John Doe from the action because the only remaining claim was an Federal Tort Claims Act claim against the United States, and the court stated that individual federal employees are not proper defendants for such a claim. The clerk was directed to terminate Gibb, Rosado, Hager, Smith, and Lieutenant John Doe as defendants and to terminate the pending motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.