BOLDEN v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS (BOP) et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 31 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and denying for Failure to State a Claim. Bolden's claim under the Eighth Amendment may proceed against the Defendants. Further, the Defendants concede that if Bolden "has pr operly alleged a cause of action for an eighth amendment violation, then he has properly stated a claim for declaratory relief." Accordingly, and based on the reasons set forth above, the Defendants' motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 31) is DENIED in its entirety. **SEE ORDER** Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/6/2015. (AH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
ROBERT L. BOLDEN, SR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 2:14-cv-103-WTL-MJD

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
This cause is before the Court on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (dkt. no. 31).
The motion is fully briefed, and the Court, being duly advised, DENIES the motion for the
reasons set forth below.
I.

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff Robert L. Bolden, Sr., is currently on death row at the United States Penitentiary
in Terre Haute, Indiana (“USP Terre Haute”). Bolden is a type 1 diabetic,1 and he also suffers
from chronic kidney disease and high blood pressure.2 Since arriving at USP Terre Haute,
Bolden’s diabetes, kidney disease, and high blood pressure have been largely uncontrolled. As a
result, he has suffered from countless episodes of life-threatening hyperglycemia (high blood

1

Type 1 diabetes is a chronic disease in which the pancreas produces little or no insulin,
a hormone that regulates glucose (which in excess can be toxic) in the blood.  
2

Although the Bureau of Prisons is not required to follow a District Court Judge’s
housing recommendation, it is noteworthy that the judge in Bolden’s case recommended that he
“be assigned to a medical facility so as to allow him to receive treatment for [his] diabetes.”
Compl. at ¶ 12.

sugar) and hypoglycemia (low blood sugar).3 In 2013 alone, Bolden was found to be unconscious
or unresponsive more than ten times. Each time, Bolden was medically revived by the prison
staff. Bolden continues to suffer from significant and sometimes coma-inducing episodes of
hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. His uncontrolled diabetes has also caused him to suffer from
chronic pain, nausea, vomiting, rapid weight loss, seizures, headaches, blurred vision, and
frequent and bloody urination. Of course, Bolden blames the Bureau of Prisons and the
individually named Defendants (who have been sued in their official capacities)4 for his
inadequate medical treatment. Bolden alleges that the Defendants’ failure to provide him with
adequate medical care is cruel and unusual and violates the Eighth Amendment of the
Constitution. Bolden also asserts a claim for declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
Ultimately, Bolden seeks an injunction directing the BOP to transfer him to a medical facility
and to provide him with an insulin pump and adequate medical care.
II.

DISCUSSION

Importantly, Bolden does not assert a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), or the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”).
Rather, his complaint, which seeks only equitable relief, alleges jurisdiction directly under the
Eighth Amendment through 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which generally states that district courts “have
original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.” According to the Defendants, Bolden’s Eighth Amendment claim must be

3

Bolden’s hyperglycemia often leads to ketoacidosis, a condition where toxic levels of
acids build up in the blood resulting in pain, mood swings, unconsciousness, and/or a diabetic
coma.
4

“An official capacity action against a government employee is essentially a suit against
the government entity itself.” Sterling v. United States, 85 F.3d 1225, 1229 (7th Cir. 1996).
2 

supported by some other “vehicle” of federal law. Because it is not, his Eight Amendment claim
must be dismissed. The Court does not agree.
“At least since Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–06 (1976), federal courts have
recognized the right of prisoners to relief if prison officials deny them basic medical care, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.” Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 413 F.3d 1225, 1227
(10th Cir. 2005). In Simmat, a prisoner filed suit against the BOP and two prison dentists—in
their official capacities—alleging that they denied him adequate dental care in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed the case, and Simmat appealed. On appeal, the
Tenth Circuit considered whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
The court concluded as follows:
Mr. Simmat’s claim easily meets the basic requirements of federal question
jurisdiction. Mr. Simmat alleges that the defendants deprived him of adequate
medical care by deliberate indifference to his serious dental needs. This claim arises
directly under the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment prohibits the government
from incarcerating prisoners without providing adequate medical care. See
Oxendine v. Kaplan, 241 F.3d 1272, 1276 (10th Cir. 2001). “Prison officials violate
the Eighth Amendment when they are deliberately indifferent to the serious medical
needs of prisoners in their custody.” Perkins, 165 F.3d at 811 (citing Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–06, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)). Mr. Simmat’s
claim is neither “immaterial” nor “frivolous.” It thus gives rise to general federal
question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Id. at 1231.
Although Simmat is nonprecedential, the Court finds the decision persuasive. Therefore,
Bolden need not assert his Eighth Amendment claim through Bivens or the FTCA in order for
this Court to have subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court also finds that Bolden has alleged sufficient facts to support a claim of cruel
and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Bolden alleges that he has experienced
and continues to experience regular coma-inducing episodes of hyperglycemia and
hypoglycemia; contrary to the Defendants’ characterization, this goes beyond allegations of
3 

“ordinary medical negligence.” As such, Bolden’s claim under the Eighth Amendment may
proceed against the Defendants. Further, the Defendants concede that if Bolden “has properly
alleged a cause of action for an eighth amendment violation, then he has properly stated a claim
for declaratory relief.” Defs.’ Reply at 6. Accordingly, and based on the reasons set forth above,
the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 31) is DENIED in its entirety.
SO ORDERED: 1/06/15
_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Copies to all counsel of record via electronic communication.

4