Fifth Circuit Reinstates Former Federal Prisoner’s Suit Over Assault By Guards at Louisiana Lockup
by Matthew T. Clarke
On April 24, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed dismissal of a former federal prisoner’s Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim for an injury allegedly caused by federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) guards. A lower court had dismissed the claim, finding the injury was de minimis. But the Fifth Circuit held that the de minimis injury threshold requirement could not be applied to FTCA claims arising in Louisiana.
Nicholas Queen sued pro se under FTCA for injuries allegedly inflicted upon him without cause while confined at the U.S. Penitentiary in Pollock. Following the altercation, a BOP nurse noted abrasions to the right side of his neck and chest but saw no bruising, swelling, or other deformities. She further noted his slurred speech, nonsensical answers and dilated pupils, concluding he was “most likely under the influence of an unknown substance.”
Over the following months, Queen complained of pain in his back, left shoulder, right hip, and right knee but was not given medical treatment other than a recommendation to take over-the-counter pain medication. After his release, Queen saw Dr. Max Romano, a physician at the Baltimore Department of Social Services, who diagnosed chronic back and right hip pain that was “severe enough to prevent [Queen] from working, [or] participating in a work, training, or educational activity” and could be expected to last over 12 months.
On a motion by the government, a magistrate judge recommended dismissal of Queen’s claim because the alleged injury was de minimis and therefore insufficient to support a FTCA assault claim against a prison guard, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(2). A judge in the federal court for the Western District of Louisiana then agreed and granted the government dismissal. Queen obtained pro bono counsel, Robert Eugene Day III of Montgomery McCracken Walker and Rhoads, LLP in Philadelphia to pursue an appeal.
The Fifth Circuit began by noting that FTCA cases apply the law of the jurisdiction where “the act or omission occurred,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Moreover, in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 144 S.Ct. 967 (2024), the Supreme Court of the U.S. had recently cautioned lower courts against imposing significance-of-injury tests not established in statutory texts. However, “Louisiana law does not impose a de minimis injury bar to tort claims,” the Fifth Circuit continued, citing Sonnier v. U. S. Cas. Co., 165 So.2d 3 (La. 1964). This also differs from claims for constitutional violations alleged by prisoners for which they must show a greater than de minimis injury, per Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191 (1997).
“Because Queen’s FTCA claims do not require passing a de minimis threshold, the district court erred in dismissing his case,” the Court held. “Furthermore, Queen submitted evidence suggesting that at least some of his injuries surpassed a de minimis threshold, which would also have pretermitted summary judgment,” the Court added, pointing to Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1991). The district court’s judgment was therefore reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. See: Queen v. United States, 99 F.4th 750 (5th Cir. 2024).
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