GORE v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
Filing
4
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 2/21/18. (jbk, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
JOHN LEE GORE,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and :
WARDEN F.C.I. FORT DIX,
:
:
Defendants.
:
CIV. NO. 17-10865 (RMB)
OPINION
BUMB, DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff John Lee Gore, a former prisoner at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey, brings this civil
rights complaint
alleging
he
injured
his
spine
and
caught
a
respiratory infection while working as an inmate in 2011 and 2012.
(Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which establishes that he cannot afford
to pay the filing fee for this action. (IFP App., ECF No. 1-1.)
Therefore, his IFP application is granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1).
When a non-prisoner plaintiff is permitted to proceed without
payment of the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) requires
courts to review a
complaint in a civil action and sua sponte
dismiss any claims that are (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fail
to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See e.g. Fake v. City of Philadelphia, 704 F. App’x 214, 215-16
(3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam). For the reasons discussed below,
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
I.
Sua Sponte Dismissal
Courts must liberally construe pleadings that are filed pro
se. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Thus, “a pro se complaint,
however
inartfully
standards
than
pleaded,
formal
must
pleadings
be
held
to
drafted
by
‘less
stringent
lawyers.’”
Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). “Court personnel reviewing pro
se pleadings are charged with the responsibility of deciphering
why the submission was filed, what the litigant is seeking, and
what claims she may be making.” See Higgs v. Atty. Gen. of the
U.S., 655 F.3d 333, 339-40 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Jonathan D.
Rosenbloom, Exploring Methods to Improve Management and Fairness
in Pro Se Cases: A Study of the Pro Se Docket in the Southern
District of New York, 30 Fordham Urb. L.J. 305, 308 (2002)).
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
2
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.) “[A]
court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
complaint[.]”
Id.
Legal
conclusions,
together
with
threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, do not suffice to
state a claim. Id. Thus, “a court considering a motion to dismiss
can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they
are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption
of truth.” Id. at 679. “While legal conclusions can provide the
framework
of
a
complaint,
they
must
be
supported
by
factual
allegations.” Id. If a complaint can be remedied by an amendment,
a district court may not dismiss the complaint with prejudice, but
must permit the amendment. Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293
F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
II.
DISCUSSSION
A.
The Complaint
Plaintiff alleged the following facts in his complaint, which
are
accepted
as
true
for
purposes
of
this
screening.
While
Plaintiff was working as an inmate at the Fort Dix military museum
3
in 2011 and 2012, he injured his spine and acquired a respiratory
infection. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3.) He was treated at the Fort
Dix medical facility, and several other prisons after he was
transferred. (Id. at 4.) For relief, Plaintiff states, “(1) need
to be looked after and to have all medical bills paid” and “(2)
monetary compensation.” (Id.)
B.
Failure to State a Claim
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted for multiple reasons. First, it is unclear how Plaintiff
believes the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the only named defendant,
violated
Plaintiff’s
constitutional
rights
or
federal
law.
Liberally construing the complaint, Plaintiff may be asserting a
claim under the Inmate Accident and Compensation Act (“IACA”), 18
U.S.C. § 4126.
The IACA created the Prison Industries Fund to compensate
““inmates or their dependents for 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.”
18 U.S.C. § 4126(c)(4). The implementing regulations appear in 28
C.F.R. § 301.101 et seq. To seek compensation for a residual
physical
impairment
resulting
from
a
work-related
injury,
a
plaintiff must begin by filing an administrative claim on FPI Form
43, Inmate Claim for Compensation on Account of Work Injury. 28
4
C.F.R. § 301.303(a). Such a claim must be filed “[n]o more than 45
days prior to the date of an inmate's release, but no less than 15
days prior to this date …”) 28 C.F.R. § 301.303(a). For good cause
shown, a claim may be accepted as much as one year after release,
and the claim must be submitted to the Claims Examiner, Federal
Bureau of Prisons. Id., § 301.303(f).
If an administrative IACA claim is denied, judicial review is
limited to whether the plaintiff was denied procedural due process
in connection with his IACA application or if the decision denying
compensation was arbitrary or capricious.
See Peguero v. Unicor
Industries, Civ. Action. No. 14-2371(RMB), 2014 WL 1716448, at *2
(D.N.J.
Apr.
30,
2014)
(citing
Thompson
v.
Federal
Prison
Industries, 492 F.2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1974); Davis v. United States,
415 F.Supp. 1086 (D. Kan. 1976); Owens v. Department of Justice,
527 F.Supp. 373 (N.D. Ind.), aff'd, 673 F.2d 1334 (7th Cir. 1981)).
It is possible that Plaintiff wishes to assert an FTCA claim
alleging a BOP employee’s negligence caused his work injury and
his respiratory infection. An FTCA claim, however, may not be made
against a federal agency like the BOP, it may only be brought
against the United States.
Furthermore, there are administrative procedural requirements
that must be met before a plaintiff may bring an FTCA claim in a
district court. White-Squire v. U.S. Postal Service, 592 F.3d 453,
5
456-57 (3d Cir. 2010). Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) “mandates
that an FTCA action ‘shall not be instituted upon a claim against
the United States for money damages … unless the claimant shall
have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency.’”
Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)). A plaintiff may bring a claim
in a district court only after his claim is finally denied by the
agency in writing. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Failure of the agency to
make a final disposition within six months after the claim is
denied shall, at the option of the plaintiff, be deemed a final
disposition. Id. An FTCA claim must be brought in the agency within
two years after the claim accrues, and in a district court within
six months after notice in writing of the final decision on the
claim by the agency. McNeil v. U.S., 508 U.S. 106, 108 n. 4 (1993)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)).
Plaintiff may also be trying to assert a Bivens claim for
violation of the Eighth Amendment based on inadequate medical care
while he was imprisoned at FCI Fort Dix. A Bivens claim cannot be
brought against a federal agency, like the BOP. 481 F. App’x 738,
740 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (citing Corr. Servs. Corp. v.
Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 71 (2001)). Plaintiff has also named the
warden of FCI Fort Dix as a defendant, but he has not alleged how
the warden was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
need, as required to state an Eighth Amendment claim. See Estelle
6
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)); Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d
218, 236 (3d Cir. 2004) (“absent a reason to believe (or actual
knowledge) that prison doctors or their assistants are mistreating
(or not treating) a prisoner, a non-medical prison official … will
not be chargeable with the Eighth Amendment scienter requirement
of deliberate indifference.”)
Finally, there is a two-year statute of limitations for Bivens
claims where the personal injury occurred in New Jersey, and the
limitations period accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason
to know of his injury. Hughes v. Knieblher, 341 F. App’x 749, 752
(3d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Plaintiff alleged he was
injured sometime in 2011 and 2012, but he does not allege when, if
ever, a federal actor was deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical need.
C.
Pending Motions
On December 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed two motions in this
action.
First,
he
filed
a
motion
for
discovery,
seeking
his
complete medical file from the Federal Bureau of Prisons. (ECF No.
2.) Second, Plaintiff filed a motion to supplement the complaint
by adding the United States Department of Defense as a defendant.
(ECF No. 3.) Because the complaint is dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, which is not cured
7
by adding the United States Department of Defense as a defendant,
the pending motions are dismissed as moot.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Plaintiff’s
IFP application and dismisses the complaint without prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
An appropriate order follows.
DATE:
February 21, 2018
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
8
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?