Neil E. Havlik v. Rod Myers et al.

Summary

This memorandum ruling addresses the United States’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss FTCA claims asserted by Neil E. Havlik. The court concludes that the original complaint and its attachments named the United States under the FTCA, finds the illegal co-pay claims time-barred, treats the claims arising from the January 4, 2017 restraint and escort as sounding in negligence rather than intentional tort, and concludes that intentional medical-care claims are barred by the FTCA’s intentional-tort exception. The ruling also analyzes whether the discretionary-function exception applies to the correctional officers’ restraint and escort decisions.

Holdings

1. The original pro se complaint, read together with its incorporated attachments, named the United States and asserted claims under the FTCA, so the FTCA claims were not untimely merely because the Fourth Amended Complaint expressly presented them years later.
2. Havlik's claims concerning illegal medical copays were prescribed under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over them.
3. Claims concerning intentional denial or delay of medical treatment were barred by the FTCA intentional-tort exception.
4. The alleged conduct during the January 4, 2017 escort sounded in negligence rather than an intentional tort because the officers' intentional decision to handcuff Havlik did not establish an intent to injure him.
5. The alleged January 4, 2017 restraint and escort conduct fell outside the FTCA discretionary-function exception at the pleading stage, so the negligence claims concerning that incident remained viable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Havlik's FTCA claims were untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) because the operative complaint was filed more than six months after the administrative claim denials.
2. Whether the FTCA's intentional-tort exception barred claims concerning medical treatment and other alleged intentional conduct.
3. Whether the correctional officers' restraint and escort of Havlik on January 4, 2017 were protected by the FTCA discretionary-function exception.
4. Whether the original complaint and its attachments adequately asserted FTCA claims against the United States.

Disposition

other