Nigel Fredricks v. Donald Trump and U.S. Army Undercover Federal Agents John Does and Janes Does

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York dismisses Nigel Fredricks’s amended prisoner complaint alleging retaliation, inadequate medical care, food tampering, due process violations, and mail tampering by President Donald Trump and unidentified federal agents. The court dismisses the official-capacity damages claims without prejudice and without leave to amend, and dismisses the individual-capacity Bivens retaliation claims with prejudice based on the new context, lack of personal involvement, and presidential immunity. The court grants leave to amend to the extent the plaintiff intended to name state actors or assert other constitutional claims, while advising that disciplinary claims arising at Green Haven Correctional Facility must be brought in the Southern District of New York.

Holdings

1. Claims seeking monetary damages from President Trump and the unnamed federal agents in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity and were properly dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and without leave to amend.
2. Plaintiff's alleged First Amendment retaliation claim presents a new Bivens context, and special factors counsel hesitation; therefore, the claim cannot proceed as a Bivens damages action.
3. The complaint failed to state Bivens claims because it did not allege that President Trump or any particular federal agent was personally and directly involved in the alleged constitutional violations.
4. Because § 1983 applies to state actors and Plaintiff identified only federal defendants, the court construed the damages claims as Bivens claims rather than § 1983 claims.
5. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint asserting claims against properly identified state actors under § 1983 and other constitutional claims against individual federal defendants, but not official-capacity damages claims or First Amendment retaliation Bivens claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint stated claims under § 1983 or Bivens against the named federal defendants.
2. Whether official-capacity claims for monetary damages against federal officers were barred by sovereign immunity and subject-matter jurisdiction.
3. Whether Plaintiff's alleged First Amendment retaliation claim could proceed as a Bivens damages action.
4. Whether the amended complaint adequately alleged the personal involvement of President Trump or unnamed federal agents.
5. Whether Plaintiff should receive leave to amend other potential constitutional claims and where any due-process claim arising from Green Haven disciplinary proceedings should be brought.

Disposition

other