Lee v. United States of America et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Lee's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (2) court will enter a separate judgment. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 9/29/11.(KJR)cc: COR, pla (US Mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON
REGINALD LEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
*****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*****
No. 5:11-CV-00249-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
*****
*****
Plaintiff Reginald Lee, confined in the Federal Medical Center
located in Lexington, Kentucky, (“FMC-Lexington”), has filed a pro
se Complaint asserting claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680.
[R. 2].
As Lee has been granted in forma pauperis status and is
asserting
screens
claims
his
1915(e)(2)(B).
against
Complaint
government
pursuant
to
officials,
the
Court
now
28
§§
1915A
and
U.S.C.
Both of these sections require a district court to
dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief
from defendants who are immune from such relief.
Id.; see also,
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 607-8 (6th Cir. 1997).
As explained below, Lee’s Complaint will be dismissed because
under the facts which he has alleged, his statutory remedy lies
under another statute, 18 U.S.C. 4126, which preempts the FTCA.
LEE’S COMPLAINT AND SUBSEQUENT FILINGS
In his Complaint, Lee alleged that on December 4, 2009,
officials at FMC-Lexington ordered him to tear down the walls of
one of the units at the prison and remove the debris.
that
the
FMC-Lexington
“professionally
trained
officials,
facility,
whom
he
Lee claims
identified
construction,
as
maintenance
personnel,” failed and/or refused to issue him a safety helmet;
failed to properly train him; and denied him necessary safety
equipment while working in a hazardous setting.
[R. 2, pp. 5-6].
Lee alleged that as a result of being denied a hard hat and
other safety equipment, a cinder block fell on his head, causing a
2-inch abrasion and bleeding which required two sutures, and that
he has sustained pain and suffering as a result of the injury.
Lee
alleged that the actions, or inactions, of the FMC-Lexington
officials constituted negligence under the FTCA and a violation of
18 U.S.C. § 4042, which requires the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to
provide for the safekeeping, care, and subsistence of all inmates
in its custody.
Lee demanded $80,000.00 in damages.
Lee has now submitted a copy of the February 24, 2011, letter
from Michelle T. Fuseymore, Regional Counsel of the BOP.
p.
2].
Fuseymore
denied
Lee’s
FTCA
Administrative
[R. 6-1,
Claim,
explaining that because his injuries arose from a prison job/work
related accident, his only recourse is to assert a claim under 18
U.S.C. § 4126(c)(4), the Inmate Accident Compensation Act (“IACA”),
2
not the FTCA.
Id.
Fuseymore informed Lee that he could contact
the staff in the FMC-Lexington Safety Department in order to obtain
information about the procedures for filing an IACA claim.
Id.
DISCUSSION
Lee’s FTCA negligence claims are barred and preempted by the
IACA, which provides the exclusive statutory compensation remedy
for BOP prisoners asserting industrial injury claims related to
their UNICOR work.1
Lee
undeniably
alleges
injuries
arising
from
his
UNICOR
employment at FMC-Lexington. Although Lee neither referred to, nor
mentioned, the term “UNICOR” in his Complaint, he alleged that he
was working on a construction crew at FMC-Lexington under the
direction
of
FMC-Lexington
officials;
that
he
sustained
a
work-related injury while performing construction work on an FMCLexington housing unit; and that his medical problems resulted from
that work assignment at FMC-Lexington.
Further, according to the
September 7, 2011, “Inmate Statement” which Lee submitted in
support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Lee has
1
The BOP has established a work program, known as the FPI, through
which qualified federal inmates are allowed the opportunity to
participate in prison work programs. 28 C.F.R. § 345.10. Because the
commercial or “trade” name of the FPI is UNICOR, most FPI factories or
shops are commonly referred to as “UNICOR.”
Under the IACA, the FPI is authorized to employ the fund provided
for in § 4126 to pay claims which federal inmates employed “in any
industry,
or
performing
outstanding
services
in
institutional
operations,” submit in connection with “injuries suffered in any industry
or in any work activity in connection with the maintenance or operation
of the institution in which the inmates are confined.” 28 U.S.C. § 4126.
3
consistently received income designated as “Payroll-IPP,” which
denotes income from UNICOR employment.
See [R. 7-1, pp. 1-8].
As Fuseymore correctly concluded, the IACA is the exclusive
means of recovery for a federal prisoner injured in the performance
of an assigned task while confined in a federal penitentiary.
United States
v. Demko, 385 U.S. 149, 151 (1966); Fraley v.
Department of Justice, No. 95-5666, 113 F.3d 1234, 1997 WL 225495,
(6th Cir. May 1, 1997) (Table).
the
sole
remedy
against
the
“Demko makes clear that § 4126 is
government
where
the
injury
is
work-related, and the cause of the injury is irrelevant so long as
the injury itself occurred while the prisoner was on the job.”
Wooten v. United States, 825 F.2d 1039, 1044 (6th Cir. 1987)
(internal quotation omitted).
The United States has not waived
sovereign
immunity
FTCA
injuries.
Id., at 1045-46.
under
the
for
inmates’
work-related
The IACA provides the exclusive remedy through which BOP
inmates employed in UNICOR work programs can seek compensation,
which means that it preempts Lee’s claims under both the FTCA and
18 U.S.C. § 4042, and constitutes the exclusive remedy for his
work-related injuries, including any post-injury medical claims.
If Lee wishes to pursue his available IACA remedy, he must
submit an FPI Form 43, Inmate Claim for Compensation on Account of
Injury, to the Institution Safety Manager or Community Corrections
Manager for processing no more than 45 days prior to the date of
4
his release, and no less than 15 days prior to the date of his
release.
28 C.F.R. § 301.303(a).
According to the “Inmate
Locator” feature of the BOP’s website, www.bop.gov, Lee's projected
release date is May 22, 2016.
Lee is so advised of the applicable
time-period for submitting an IACA claim in relation to that date.
For the reasons set forth above, Lee has failed to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted under the FTCA, as his
claims asserted under that statutory scheme are preempted by the
provisions of the IACA, 18 U.S.C. § 4126(c)(4).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1)
Reginald Lee’s Complaint, asserting (a)negligence claims
under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680,
and (b) constitutional claims under 18 U.S.C. § 4042, [R. 2], is
DISMISSED with PREJUDICE.
(2)
The Court will enter a separate Judgment.
This the 29th day of September, 2011.
5
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?