Terri McGuire-Mollica v. Richard Griffin, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted federal defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in a pro se Bivens action alleging inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court held that the claim presented a new Bivens context under controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent and that special factors, including the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative remedy program, foreclosed extending a damages remedy. The court also denied the plaintiff’s motions to amend, transfer the action to state court, and impose sanctions.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff's claim presents a new Bivens context because the alleged injuries differ in severity, type, and treatment from the injuries in Carlson v. Green, and because the Bureau of Prisons administrative-remedy program is an alternative remedy not considered in Carlson.
2. No Bivens damages remedy is available for plaintiff's claim because, under Egbert v. Boule, Congress is at least arguably better equipped than the judiciary to determine whether an additional damages remedy should be created, and the special-factors analysis therefore forecloses extension of Bivens.
3. Leave to amend was denied because the proposed amendment would be futile: § 4042 does not create a private damages action against individual BOP officials, and violation of an internal BOP program statement does not itself establish a constitutional or statutory violation.
4. The motion to transfer was denied because the plaintiff identified no authority or mechanism permitting a federal court to transfer an originally filed federal action to state court, and the complaint asserted constitutional claims rather than a state-law medical-malpractice claim.
5. Sanctions were denied because Rule 11 and Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 do not apply to the represented defendants in the circumstances presented, and plaintiff failed to show bad faith or other sanctionable conduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to judgment on the pleadings because plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical-care claim presented a new Bivens context and special factors counseled against recognizing a damages remedy.
2. Whether plaintiff should be allowed to amend her complaint to assert claims under 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(2) and a Bureau of Prisons patient-care program statement.
3. Whether the action could be transferred from federal court to state court as a medical-malpractice action.
4. Whether sanctions were warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3, or the court's inherent authority based on alleged falsification or alteration of medical records and declarations.

Disposition

other