Still v. Richardson et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter is dismissed. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 2/14/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Kenneth Jay Still by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

KENNETH JAY STILL,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 08-3309-SAC

SHELTON RICHARDSON, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a civil action filed by a prisoner in federal
custody. Previously, the court entered an order directing plaintiff
to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed. Plaintiff
filed a response to that order. Having considered the record and
applicable case law, the court concludes this matter must be
dismissed.
Background
Plaintiff was placed in the Leavenworth, Kansas, detention
facility operated by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA)
as a federal prisoner. Pending a classification decision, he was
placed in the facility’s Z housing pod unit. Authorities later
classified him as a sexual predator based upon an untried charge of
statutory rape and transferred him to the N pod. During the relevant
time, prisoners assigned to the N pod were segregated but took meals
in a dayroom in view of the general population. As a result, the N
pod prisoners were subjected to verbal taunts and threats. Plaintiff
seeks damages based upon this exposure.

By its earlier order, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claim for
injunctive relief due to his release from the CCA facility and
directed him to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction over his claim against the individual
employees of a private corporation.
Plaintiff filed a timely response in which he contends that
jurisdiction is proper.
Discussion
The United States Supreme court recently held that a Bivens
remedy is not available to a prisoner seeking relief against the
employees of a private prison. In Minneci v. Pollard, ___ U.S. ___,
___, 132 S.Ct. 617, 626 (U.S. Jan. 10, 2012), the Court stated:
[W]here ... a federal prisoner seeks damages
from privately employed personnel working at a
privately operated federal prison, where the
conduct allegedly amounts to a violation of the
Eighth Amendment, and where that conduct is of
a kind that typically falls within the scope of
traditional state tort law ... the prisoner
must seek a remedy under state tort law. We
cannot imply a Bivens remedy in such a case.
Id.
The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and,
where a court determines that it lacks jurisdiction, it “cannot
render judgment but must dismiss the cause at any stage of the
proceedings in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is
lacking.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 909 (10th
Cir. 1974).
Because the court concludes that plaintiff has an adequate

2

remedy under state law to address his claims, the present action is
subject to dismissal.
IT

IS,

THEREFORE,

BY

THE

COURT

ORDERED

this

matter

dismissed.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 14th day of February, 2012, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

3

is