×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Bivens Action Against Federal Agents
The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Tennessee federal
district court's dismissal of a Bivens claim against federal agents who
allegedly destroyed a federal prisoner's property and denied him medical care.
Thomas Harold Stiger, a federal prisoner, filed an action under Bivens v
Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bur. of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
against various U.S. government officials. Stiger claimed that U.S. Secret
Service Agent Geoffrey A. Rice, in cooperation with the SWAT Team of the
Shelby County [Tennessee] Sheriff's Department, forcibly opened and
destroyed two doors of his residence "without knocking or announcing their
presence," while executing a federal search warrant. Stiger further claimed
that Rice illegally destroyed Stiger's property and booked Stiger in the
Shelby County Jail under a phony name and denied him necessary medical care
and treatment for a gall bladder ailment, and falsified dates on numerous
records pertaining to Stiger's case.
This district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). The district court held that Stiger's complaint
was frivolous and failed to state a claim for relief. Stiger appealed.
The appeals court noted that most of the named defendants were Stiger's
superiors. Thus, Stiger's claim depended on the theory of respondeat
superior, that is, a superior person's liability for the actions of a
person under the superior's authority. However, the respondeat superior is
not available to litigants in a Bivens action.
Further, a Bivens action cannot be used to recover property allegedly
destroyed or stolen by Rice. The appeals court held Stiger had numerous,
adequate post-deprivation remedies for replacement or recovery of his
property and that Stiger had shown the remedies to be inadequate or
unavailable.
Finally, the appeals court held that Stiger's complaint of deprivation of
adequate medical care failed to state a claim for relief. Stiger failed to
show that Rice was deliberately indifferent to his medical problems.
The district court dismissal was affirmed. This case is published in the
Federal Appendix and is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See:
Stiger v O'Neill, 53 Fed.Appx. 738 (6th Cir. 2002).
district court's dismissal of a Bivens claim against federal agents who
allegedly destroyed a federal prisoner's property and denied him medical care.
Thomas Harold Stiger, a federal prisoner, filed an action under Bivens v
Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bur. of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
against various U.S. government officials. Stiger claimed that U.S. Secret
Service Agent Geoffrey A. Rice, in cooperation with the SWAT Team of the
Shelby County [Tennessee] Sheriff's Department, forcibly opened and
destroyed two doors of his residence "without knocking or announcing their
presence," while executing a federal search warrant. Stiger further claimed
that Rice illegally destroyed Stiger's property and booked Stiger in the
Shelby County Jail under a phony name and denied him necessary medical care
and treatment for a gall bladder ailment, and falsified dates on numerous
records pertaining to Stiger's case.
This district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). The district court held that Stiger's complaint
was frivolous and failed to state a claim for relief. Stiger appealed.
The appeals court noted that most of the named defendants were Stiger's
superiors. Thus, Stiger's claim depended on the theory of respondeat
superior, that is, a superior person's liability for the actions of a
person under the superior's authority. However, the respondeat superior is
not available to litigants in a Bivens action.
Further, a Bivens action cannot be used to recover property allegedly
destroyed or stolen by Rice. The appeals court held Stiger had numerous,
adequate post-deprivation remedies for replacement or recovery of his
property and that Stiger had shown the remedies to be inadequate or
unavailable.
Finally, the appeals court held that Stiger's complaint of deprivation of
adequate medical care failed to state a claim for relief. Stiger failed to
show that Rice was deliberately indifferent to his medical problems.
The district court dismissal was affirmed. This case is published in the
Federal Appendix and is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See:
Stiger v O'Neill, 53 Fed.Appx. 738 (6th Cir. 2002).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Stiger v. O'Neill
| Year | 2002 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 53 Fed.Appx. 738 (6th Cir. 2002) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
THOMAS HAROLD STIGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAUL O'NEILL, Secretary of the United States Treasury, Washington, D.C.; BRIAN L. STAFFORD, Director, United States Secret Service, Washington, D.C.; TIM W. VIERTEL, Special Agent in charge, United States Secret Service, Memphis, Tennessee; GEOFFREY A. RICE, Agent, United States Secret Service, Memphis Tennessee, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-5774
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
53 Fed. Appx. 738; 2002 U.S. App.
December 6, 2002, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
PRIOR HISTORY: Western District of Tennessee. 02-02135. Gibbons. 06-04-02.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
COUNSEL: THOMAS HAROLD STIGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro se, Minersville, PA.
JUDGES: Before: GUY and BOGGS, Circuit Judges; EDMUNDS, District Judge. *
* The Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
OPINION:
[*739] ORDER
Before: GUY and BOGGS, Circuit Judges; EDMUNDS, District Judge. *
* The Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
Thomas Harold Stiger, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his civil action filed [**2] pursuant to the doctrine announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971). This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
Seeking monetary relief, Stiger filed a complaint against Paul O'Neill, Secretary of the United States Treasury; Brian L. Stafford, Director of the United States Secret Service; Tim W. Viertel, Special Agent in Charge of the United States Secret Service office located in Memphis, Tennessee; and Geoffrey A. Rice, United States Secret Service Agent. Stiger alleged that on June 7, 2000, Rice enlisted the aid of the Shelby County Sheriff's Department SWAT Team and executed a federal search warrant at his residence located in Memphis, Tennessee. Stiger alleged that when executing the warrant, Rice and the SWAT Team forcibly opened and destroyed two doors of the residence "without knocking or announcing their presence" and intentionally seized and destroyed his personal property. Stiger contended that Rice [**3] arrested him, transported him to the Shelby County Jail, and booked him under the name of Ricardo Martell Taylor even though he identified himself to Rice as Thomas Harold Stiger.
At the time of his arrest, Stiger alleged that he was suffering from a "serious life threatening gall bladder ailment" for which he was in the process of seeking treatment at a Tennessee hospital. After his arrest, however, Stiger alleged that Rice denied him medical care and treatment for his ailment "causing him to suffer unbearable pain and sufferings." Stiger also alleged that Rice falsified his arrest warrant, his criminal complaint, the date on which his property was seized, and various secret service records and documents so as to conceal and justify the defendants' misconduct in his case.
The district court dismissed Stiger's complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), upon its determination that the complaint was frivolous and failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Stiger has filed a timely appeal.
We review de novo a judgment dismissing a suit for frivolity and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted [**4] under § 1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866-67 (6th Cir. 2000). A complaint "is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, [*740] 104 L. Ed. 2d 338, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989). "Dismissal of a complaint for the failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted is appropriate only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Brown, 207 F.3d at 867.
Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Stiger's complaint, as it is frivolous and fails to state a claim for relief. First, Stiger's claims against O'Neill, Stafford, and Viertel were properly dismissed, as they are based upon a respondeat superior theory of liability. The theory of respondeat superior cannot provide the basis for liability in a Bivens action. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978); Jones v. City of Memphis, 586 F.2d 622, 625 (6th Cir. 1978).
Second, Stiger's claim against Rice for the alleged [**5] deprivation and destruction of his property were properly dismissed, as post-deprivation remedies are available to Stiger and he has not shown that such remedies are inadequate. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 531-33, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393, 104 S. Ct. 3194 (1984); McNeair v. Snyder, 7 Fed. Appx. 317, 319 (6th Cir. Feb. 5, 2001) (unpublished order). Third, Stiger's claim against Rice for the alleged denial of medical care was properly dismissed, as the allegations contained in Stiger's complaint do not support the conclusion that Rice was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-99, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991).
Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
No. 02-5774
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
53 Fed. Appx. 738; 2002 U.S. App.
December 6, 2002, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
PRIOR HISTORY: Western District of Tennessee. 02-02135. Gibbons. 06-04-02.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
COUNSEL: THOMAS HAROLD STIGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro se, Minersville, PA.
JUDGES: Before: GUY and BOGGS, Circuit Judges; EDMUNDS, District Judge. *
* The Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
OPINION:
[*739] ORDER
Before: GUY and BOGGS, Circuit Judges; EDMUNDS, District Judge. *
* The Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
Thomas Harold Stiger, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his civil action filed [**2] pursuant to the doctrine announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971). This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
Seeking monetary relief, Stiger filed a complaint against Paul O'Neill, Secretary of the United States Treasury; Brian L. Stafford, Director of the United States Secret Service; Tim W. Viertel, Special Agent in Charge of the United States Secret Service office located in Memphis, Tennessee; and Geoffrey A. Rice, United States Secret Service Agent. Stiger alleged that on June 7, 2000, Rice enlisted the aid of the Shelby County Sheriff's Department SWAT Team and executed a federal search warrant at his residence located in Memphis, Tennessee. Stiger alleged that when executing the warrant, Rice and the SWAT Team forcibly opened and destroyed two doors of the residence "without knocking or announcing their presence" and intentionally seized and destroyed his personal property. Stiger contended that Rice [**3] arrested him, transported him to the Shelby County Jail, and booked him under the name of Ricardo Martell Taylor even though he identified himself to Rice as Thomas Harold Stiger.
At the time of his arrest, Stiger alleged that he was suffering from a "serious life threatening gall bladder ailment" for which he was in the process of seeking treatment at a Tennessee hospital. After his arrest, however, Stiger alleged that Rice denied him medical care and treatment for his ailment "causing him to suffer unbearable pain and sufferings." Stiger also alleged that Rice falsified his arrest warrant, his criminal complaint, the date on which his property was seized, and various secret service records and documents so as to conceal and justify the defendants' misconduct in his case.
The district court dismissed Stiger's complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), upon its determination that the complaint was frivolous and failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Stiger has filed a timely appeal.
We review de novo a judgment dismissing a suit for frivolity and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted [**4] under § 1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866-67 (6th Cir. 2000). A complaint "is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, [*740] 104 L. Ed. 2d 338, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989). "Dismissal of a complaint for the failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted is appropriate only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Brown, 207 F.3d at 867.
Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Stiger's complaint, as it is frivolous and fails to state a claim for relief. First, Stiger's claims against O'Neill, Stafford, and Viertel were properly dismissed, as they are based upon a respondeat superior theory of liability. The theory of respondeat superior cannot provide the basis for liability in a Bivens action. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978); Jones v. City of Memphis, 586 F.2d 622, 625 (6th Cir. 1978).
Second, Stiger's claim against Rice for the alleged [**5] deprivation and destruction of his property were properly dismissed, as post-deprivation remedies are available to Stiger and he has not shown that such remedies are inadequate. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 531-33, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393, 104 S. Ct. 3194 (1984); McNeair v. Snyder, 7 Fed. Appx. 317, 319 (6th Cir. Feb. 5, 2001) (unpublished order). Third, Stiger's claim against Rice for the alleged denial of medical care was properly dismissed, as the allegations contained in Stiger's complaint do not support the conclusion that Rice was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-99, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991).
Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.