Castillo v. Correctional Corporation of America et al
Filing
6
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The dismissal is without prejudice to any valid state law claim Plaintiff may have under the facts alleged. 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. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 10/31/2014. (JLG)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSE ANGEL CASTILLO,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, etc., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:14CV0014
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Jose Angel Castillo filed this Bivens1 action against Defendants
Correction[s] Corporation of America (“CCA”), Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (“NEOCC”)
Warden Michael [Pugh], and NEOCC. Plaintiff is incarcerated at NEOCC, a prison owned and
operated by CCA. He alleges Defendants negligently transported him in 2013. Plaintiff seeks
one million dollars in damages.
I. Background
On or about April 9, 2013, Plaintiff was traveling as a passenger en route to the hospital
in a NEOCC Prisoner Transportation Vehicle (PTV). The PTV collided with another vehicle
causing Plaintiff to suffer injuries to his back and legs. Plaintiff alleges he still suffers pain from
1
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971). While Plaintiff cites 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that section is inapplicable, as there
is no allegation of action under color of state law. Plaintiff is a federal prisoner in the
custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). Bivens provides federal inmates and detainees
with a cause of action analogous to § 1983.
(4:14CV0014)
the injuries which have impeded his ability to lead a normal life. He now requires the assistance
of a cane to walk. Complaint (ECF No. 1) at PageID #: 2.
Plaintiff alleges NEOCC employees were negligent while acting within the scope of their
employment. Moreover, Plaintiff claims Defendants breached a duty of care owed to him. This
resulted in Plaintiff receiving less than the “standard of attention” required by law to transport a
prisoner. ECF No. 1 at PageID #:3.
II. Standard for Dismissal
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), 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.2 Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v.
City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). For the reasons stated below, this action is
dismissed pursuant to section 1915(e).
III. Failure to State a Claim
Under the Bivens doctrine, a plaintiff may allege a claim based on an injury of his
constitutional rights by a federal employee. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 397. Bivens actions are
2
A claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the plaintiff and
without service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that it is invoking
section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim for one of the
reasons set forth in the statute. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir.
1997) (overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007); Harris v.
Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986); Brooks v. Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179 (6th
Cir. 1985).
2
(4:14CV0014)
judicially created damages remedies against an individual for violation of a constitutional right.
See id. at 392; see also Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (authorizing the extension of
Bivens claims and damages to Fifth Amendment violations). The purpose of Bivens is to deter
individual federal officers, not agencies, from committing constitutional violations. Correctional
Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 70 (2001). Therefore, a Bivens action cannot be brought
against an entity such as a federal prison, the BOP or the United States government. Id.
Plaintiff’s claims against CCA and NEOCC fail to state claims upon which relief may be
granted. CCA is a private corporation that owns and operates NEOCC. 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 BOP facility alleges a constitutional deprivation,
his only remedy lies against the offending individual officer). Moreover, because federal
prisoners in private facilities enjoy a parallel tort remedy that is unavailable to prisoners housed
in Government facilities, Plaintiff’s alternative remedies are at least as great, and in many
respects greater, than anything he could pursue under Bivens.
Plaintiff also has no cause of action under Bivens against Warden Pugh. The Supreme
Court has further declined to extend Bivens to a private prison’s employees under certain
circumstances. Minneci v. Pollard, ___U.S. ___,132 S.Ct. 617 (2012). Federal prisoners
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 negligence at issue here), must seek a remedy under state tort law. A
3
(4:14CV0014)
Bivens remedy cannot be implied. Id. at 626. Thus, although Plaintiff may have a remedy under
state tort law for the conduct alleged in the Complaint (ECF No. 1), he has not stated a cause of
action under Bivens against CCA, the warden or NEOCC.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The dismissal is
without prejudice to any valid state law claim Plaintiff may have under the facts alleged. 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.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 31, 2014
Date
3
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in
writing that it is not taken in good faith.
4
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?