Calvo-Saucedo v. Corrections Corporations of America et al
Filing
6
Memorandum Opinion and Order: This action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Sara Lioi on 11/9/2012. (P,J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSE LUIS CALVO-SAUCEDO,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, et al.,
DEFENDANTS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:12CV1128
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Jose Luis Calvo-Saucedo filed this Bivens1 action against
Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”), the Northeast Ohio Correction Center
(“NEOCC”), NEOCC Warden Michael Pugh, NEOCC Physician Dr. Rupecka, NEOCC
Unknown Corrections Officer(s), and the NEOCC Medical Emergency Response Team
(“NEOCC MERT”). In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges the defendants were negligent in
providing treatment and care when he suffered a seizure. He seeks monetary and injunctive
relief.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and is housed
in NEOCC, a private prison owned and operated by CCA. He claims he was given a physical
examination upon his arrival at NEOCC. Medical staff noted no substantial medical conditions at
that time.
On August 31, 2011, plaintiff claims that he suffered a seizure. The NEOCC
MERT, comprised of unknown corrections officers and medical staff, responded to his cell
1
Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
where they found him unconscious. He contends he was placed in a wheelchair and then onto a
stretcher. He indicates he was mishandled and dropped several times as he continued to have
convulsions. He suffered several compression fractures in his spine and myocardial injury. He
was not placed in restraints. Next, he alleges he was transported by ambulance to St. Elizabeth’s
Hospital in Youngtown, Ohio and was released two days later with medication for the pain. He
claims he has requested further diagnosis regarding his seizure but his request has been denied.
He contends he has a walker and a spinal belt that does not fit properly. He claims defendants
were negligent in responding to his emergency in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He also
asserts claims for violation of the Alien Torts Act.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.
364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), the district court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action
under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks
an arguable basis in law or fact. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir.
1997). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted when it lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
564 (2007). A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual
allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative
level on the assumption that all the allegations in the Complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. A plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than
2
“an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A
pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not meet this pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe the
pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
III.
ANALYSIS
A. Bivens Claims
As an initial matter, plaintiff does not have recourse against CCA or NEOCC
under Bivens. Bivens provides a limited cause of action against individual federal government
officers alleged to have acted unconstitutionally under color of federal law. Corr. Servs.
Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 70 (2001). Bivens’s purpose is to deter individual federal officers,
not agencies, from committing constitutional violations. A Bivens action therefore cannot be
brought against an entity such as a federal prison, the Bureau of Prisons, or the United States
Government. Id.
CCA, which owns and operates NEOCC, is a private corporation. To avoid
imposing asymmetrical liability costs on private prison facilities, the Supreme Court declined to
expand Bivens to provide this cause of action against a private prison corporation. Id. at 70-74.
(pointing out that when a prisoner in a Bureau of Prisons facility alleges a constitutional
deprivation, his only remedy lies against the offending individual officer). Plaintiff therefore
cannot bring his Bivens claims against CCA or against NEOCC.
Plaintiff also has no cause of action under Bivens against Warden Pugh, Dr.
Rupecka, the Unknown Corrections Officer or the individuals on the NEOCC MERT. The
Supreme Court has further declined to extend Bivens to a private prison’s employees under
certain circumstances. Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S. Ct. 617, 622-23 (2012).
3
A federal prisoner seeking 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 (such as the conduct
involving improper medical care at issue here), must seek a remedy under state
tort law. A Bivens remedy cannot be implied.
Id. at 626. Thus, although plaintiff has a remedy under state tort law for the conduct alleged in
his complaint, he has not stated a cause of action under Bivens against the individual employees
of CCA or NEOCC.
B. Alien Tort Statute
Plaintiff also asserts that he is entitled to relief under the Alien Torts Act. The
Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), more commonly known as the Alien Tort Claims Act, was passed by
the First Congress in 1789. See Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 9(b), 1 Stat. 73, 76-77 (codified,
as amended, at 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (2000)). In its current form, the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”)
provides in its entirety: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by
an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350.
In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), the Supreme Court set forth a
framework for determining whether a cause of action falls within the purview of the ATS. After
conducting a lengthy historical review, the Court found that at the time the ATS was enacted
only three actions were generally recognized as infractions of the law of nations: piracy, offenses
against ambassadors, and violations of safe conduct. Id. at 724. In addition to these traditional
law of nations violations, other causes of actions based upon present-day law of nations may be
cognizable under the ATS if the claim “both rest[s] on a norm of international character accepted
by the civilized world and [is] defined with a specificity comparable to the features of the
4
[aforementioned] 18th-century paradigms.” Id. at 725.
The Supreme Court cautioned, however, that while “the door is still ajar [on ATS
claims, such claims are] . . . subject to vigilant door-keeping, and thus open to a narrow class of
international norms today.” Id. at 729. The Sixth Circuit has explained that while “the ATS holds
great potential to bring justice to certain serious violations of human, civil, and environmental
rights in a federal forum,” that statute, “by no means, supplies jurisdiction over every wrong
committed against an alien.” Taveras v. Taveraz, 477 F.3d 767, 771 (6th Cir. 2007).
In this case, plaintiff does not provide any basis for his claim under the ATS. He
does not identify a “treaty of the United States” with any potential application to the instant case.
As set forth above, the three original laws of nations identified in the 18th century were piracy,
offenses against ambassadors, and violations of safe conduct. Sosa, 542 U.S. at 724. There are no
allegations in the Complaint suggesting a violation of any of this original law of nations.
Specifically, there is no indication of an act of robbery or depredation committed upon the high
seas, which is a fundamental element of the offense of piracy. Taveras, 477 F.3d at 772, fn 2.
Further, there are no allegations of any kind regarding any potential offenses against an
ambassador. Finally, with regard to the violation of safe conduct, the Sixth Circuit has explained,
“a violation of safe conduct occurs when an alien’s privilege to pass safely within and through
the host nation is infringed and the alien consequently suffers injury to their ‘person or
property.’” Id. at 773 (quoting 4 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES
ON THE
LAWS
OF
ENGLAND, 68-69 (1769)). Even when liberally construed, there are no allegations in the
complaint suggesting that defendants violated plaintiff’s right to safe conduct under the law of
nations.
It is possible that plaintiff is attempting to argue a cause of action based upon
5
“present-day law of nations,” as suggested in Sosa, supra. To fall within this provision of the
ATS, however, the alleged tortious conduct must violate “well-established universally
recognized norms of international law.” Taveras, 477 F.3d at 776. Plaintiff’s complaint is based
upon what appears to be medical malpractice and negligence, not a violation of international law.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims under the ATS are dismissed.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this
decision could not be taken in good faith.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 9, 2012
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides, in pertinent part, “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court
certifies that it is not taken in good faith.”
6
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?