Castro v. United States of America et al
Filing
87
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, the Court ADOPTS in part and REJECTS in part the R & R (Doc. 81 )and GRANTS in part and DENIES as moot in part defendants motion to dismiss (Doc. 55 ). The Court further DISMISSES Bagwell from the Bivens claim in count two without prejudice and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly at the close of this case. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 3/19/2014. (jdh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTHONY CASTRO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 13-cv-571-JPG-PMF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DR.
SZOKE, WINCLEMEYER, BAGWELL,
CASTILLO, CULLERS and MANDIE
BAGWELL,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Doc.
81) of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier wherein he recommends this Court deny defendants’
motion to dismiss (Doc. 55). Defendants filed an objection only to the portion of the R & R
recommending the Court deny the motion to dismiss with respect to defendant Bagwell. For the
following reasons, the Court (1) adopts in part and rejects in part the R & R, and (2) grants in
part and denies in part the motion to dismiss.
1. R & R Standard
The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations of
the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court must review de
novo the portions of the report to which objections are made. The Court has discretion to conduct a new
hearing and may consider the record before the magistrate judge anew or receive any further evidence
deemed necessary. Id. “If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews
those unobjected portions for clear error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
The Court received no objection to the portion of the R & R recommending the Court deny the
motion to dismiss as moot to the extent it seeks to dismiss the individual defendants from Count One and
the USA from Count Two. As such, after a review of the file for clear error, the Court adopts that portion
of the R & R and denies the motion to dismiss as moot to the extent it seeks to dismiss the individual
defendants from Count One and the USA from Count Two. The Court, however, received an objection to
the portion of the R & R recommending the Court deny the motion to dismiss to the extent it asks the
Court to dismiss Bagwell from this case because she is immune from suit. The Court will turn to consider
Bagwell’s objection.
2. Background
In its referral order, the Court found that Castro stated a Federal Tort Claims Act
(“FTCA”) claim against the United States and a Bivens claim against defendants Szoke,
Winclemeyer, Bagwell, Castillo, and Cullers. The Court will recount the facts only as they relate
to Bagwell. Bagwell is a physician’s assistant employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Castro alleges Bagwell was deliberately indifferent to his need for medical care after he slipped
and fell on a wet floor at USP Marion. Specifically, Castro alleges Bagwell, among other
medical professionals, did not recognize and treat his injuries. In her motion to dismiss, Bagwell
argues she must be dismissed because the Public Health Service Act precludes Bivens actions
against individual United States Public Health Service (“PHS”) officers or employees for harms
arising out of the performance of medical or related functions within the scope of their
employment. 42 U.S.C. § 233(a). In support, Bagwell provides the declaration of CAPT George
Durgin of the Bureau of Prisons attesting that Bagwell is an active duty commissioned officer of
the United States Public Health Service.
The R & R recommends denying Bagwell’s request for dismissal. First, Judge Frazier
noted the Court would have to convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment
to consider Durgin’s affidavit. Judge Frazier concluded that the motion would still have to be
2
denied, however, because there was no evidence before the Court that Bagwell was acting within
the scope of her duties.
3. Analysis
Bagwell’s motion fails to state under which rule of civil procedure it is brought. The
Court, however, presumes it is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Rule 12(b)(1) allows the Court to dismiss claims over which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Under Rule 12(b)(1), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint
and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Long v. Shorebank Dev. Corp, 182
F.3d 548, 554 (7th Cir. 1999). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion differs from a Rule 12(b)(6) motion in
that the Court may consider evidence submitted outside of the complaint to determine whether
jurisdiction exists.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) provides
The remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b) and 2672 of
Title 28, or by alternative benefits provided by the United States where the
availability of such benefits precludes a remedy under section 1346(b) of Title 28,
for damage for personal injury, including death, resulting from the performance of
medical, surgical, dental, or related functions, including the conduct of clinical
studies or investigation, by any commissioned officer or employee of the Public
Health Service while acting within the scope of his office or employment, shall be
exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding by reason of the same subjectmatter against the officer or employee (or his estate) whose act or omission gave
rise to the claim.
The Supreme Court explained “that the immunity provided by §233(a) precludes Bivens actions
against individual PHS officers or employees for harms arising out of conduct described in that
section.” Hui Castaneda, 559 U.S. 799, 812 (2010).
Here, Bagwell has sufficiently established through Durgin’s affidavit that she was a PHS
employee at the time of the alleged incident. The only allegations relative to Bagwell were that
Bagwell saw Castro at a sick call sometime after the fall and that after the denial of his claim at
3
the institutional level Bagwell recognized Castro’s claims and treated him. Construing these
allegations in the light most favorable to Castro, he has failed to allege any facts that would
allow this Court to conclude that Bagwell was acting outside the scope of her duties at the time
of the incident. Rather, the allegations indicate she was acting within the scope of her duty. As
such, the Court grants this portion of Bagwell’s motion and dismisses Bagwell without prejudice.
4. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in part and REJECTS in part the R & R (Doc. 81)
and GRANTS in part and DENIES as moot in part defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 55).
Specifically, the Court adopts the R & R and denies as moot defendants’ motion to dismiss to the
extent the (1) individual defendants seek to be dismissed from the FTCA claim in Count One and
(2) USA seeks to be dismissed from the Bivens claim in Count Two. The Court rejects the R &
R and grants defendants’ motion to dismiss to the extent it seeks to dismiss Bagwell from the
Bivens claim in Count Two. The Court further DISMISSES Bagwell from this claim without
prejudice and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly at the close of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 19, 2014
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?