Summary
A United States Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Skyler McMillion’s pro se Bivens and Federal Tort Claims Act action for failure to state a cognizable claim. The recommendation concludes that the alleged denials of administrative forms, court access, medical care, property, and adequate confinement conditions do not support a viable claim, and that the complaint lacks sufficient factual linkage and allegations to state an FTCA claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff's constitutional claims presented cognizable Bivens causes of action.
- Whether plaintiff plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim based on denial of medical care.
- Whether plaintiff stated a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- Whether the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim after plaintiff failed to amend or respond to the order to show cause.
Holdings
- The asserted claims presented contexts for which no Bivens damages remedy had been recognized, and plaintiff did not state a viable basis for extending Bivens.
- Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable deliberate-indifference claim because he did not adequately allege an objectively serious medical need or identify a defendant who knowingly disregarded a substantial risk to his health.
- Plaintiff failed to state an FTCA claim because he did not allege facts establishing a state-law tort, injury, or a causal connection between any individual defendant's conduct and the alleged harm, and he did not identify the United States as the proper defendant.
- Dismissal was recommended because the operative complaint failed to state a cognizable claim and plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or respond to the order to show cause.
Key quotations
“Not all constitutional cases against federal officers for damages may proceed as Bivens claims.” (at 2)
“If any rational reason exists to defer to Congress to establish a remedy, courts “may not recognize a Bivens remedy.”” (at 3)
“Consequently, without any linkage between the actions or inactions of each individual Defendant and the harm alleged, Plaintiff’s claims are nothing more than speculation, devoid of factual support.” (at 7)
Factual background
During a roughly sixty-day lockdown at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater, plaintiff alleged that he was confined to his cell for twenty-four hours a day and lacked access to administrative-remedy forms, current events, outside communication, the courts, medical treatment, personal property, cleaning supplies, and commissary. He asserted First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment claims and referred to the Federal Tort Claims Act. His medical allegations consisted principally of severe tooth pain and leg cramps, and he did not identify which defendant was responsible for denying medical care.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the complaint on June 30, 2025. On July 29, 2025, the court found that the complaint failed to state a cognizable claim and granted thirty days to amend. Plaintiff did not amend or respond, so the court issued an order to show cause on September 24, 2025. Plaintiff again failed to respond, and the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the action, subject to objections and review by the assigned district judge.