Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Milter v. United States

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

June 12, 2018

S. GEORGE MILTER and LISA MARIE LOGUIDICE, Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          MATTHEW W. BRANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The United States Bureau of Prisons and Noel Trusal (together, the “BOP Defendants”) moved to dismiss portions of Plaintiffs' complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on some of Plaintiffs' claims. For the reasons that follow, that motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On January 9, 2017, Plaintiffs S. George Milter and Lisa Marie LoGuidice sued Defendants, alleging that Mr. Milter received inadequate medical care while incarcerated.[1] Plaintiffs' complaint contains claims under the Eighth Amendment, the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), and state tort law. The claims are brought against the United States Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”); Noel Trusal, a BOP nurse; and other, unidentified BOP medical employees (“Medical Employees”); the Geisinger Health Care System; and Dr. David J. Ball.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Whether Mr. Milter Can Bring an Eighth Amendment Claim Against the BOP

         The BOP argues that this Court should dismiss Mr. Milter's Eighth Amendment claim against it because constitutional claims are not cognizable under the FTCA.[2] Plaintiffs do not address that argument. Therefore, this Court will dismiss Count I of Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.

         B. Whether Plaintiffs Were Required to Administratively Exhaust Their Remedies Before Filing Their Constitutional Claims

         The BOP Defendants argue that this Court should dismiss Plaintiffs' constitutional claims because those claims were not administratively exhausted.

         The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing an action under federal law “with respect to prison conditions.”[3] The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, however, has noted that such “failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense [that] the defendant must plead and prove” which “necessarily involves a factual inquiry.”[4]The BOP Defendants have not yet filed an answer to Plaintiffs' complaint, and the parties have not yet engaged in any discovery, so this Court will deny the BOP Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' constitutional claims (and their alternative motion for summary judgment on those claims). This Court will, however, allow limited discovery on the exhaustion issue, and grant the BOP Defendants leave to renew their motion for summary judgment at the conclusion of that discovery period.

         C. Whether Ms. Trusal Is Entitled to Immunity Against the Constitutional Claims

         The BOP Defendants argue that Ms. Trusal is entitled to statutory immunity as a Public Health Service Official.[5] Plaintiffs agree.[6] Therefore, this Court will dismiss the constitutional claims against her with prejudice.

         D. Whether Plaintiffs Can Maintain Their FTCA Claims Against Ms. Trusal and the Medical Employees

         The BOP Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' negligence claims against Ms. Trusal and the Medical Employees should be dismissed because the FTCA indicates that the exclusive remedy for such torts is an action against the United States itself.[7] Since Plaintiffs have raised FTCA claims directly against the government in Counts II and VIII, this ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.