The federal appeals court based in Denver has declined to consider an incarcerated man’s allegations that a prison official tampered with his food by placing “light brown matter,” “red matter” and saliva on his meals, causing illness.
On Aug. 16, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit issued an order explaining that, due to Eric Adams’ status as a federal prisoner, he could not sue for monetary damages over the alleged food contamination.
Lawsuits seeking money against federal officials are known as a “Bivens remedy,” named after the 1971 Supreme Court decision Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. The Supreme Court initially authorized Bivens remedies in three specific circumstances: unreasonable searches and seizures, sex discrimination and deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs.
However, the Supreme Court has since broadcast that it is largely unwilling to allow Bivens remedies in other types of cases. In contrast, a federal law known as Section 1983 facilitates lawsuits against state officials for constitutional violations. While state employees may still be subject to immunity depending on the nature of their conduct, there is no blanket prohibition on bringing such claims in the first place.
That disparity in treatment recently prompted a federal judge in Colorado to take the extraordinary step of calling on Congress to roll back the Supreme Court’s limitations on Bivens lawsuits. He labeled the situation a “fundamentally unjust legal state of affairs.”
In Adams’ case, the 10th Circuit nonetheless found itself obligated to dismiss his lawsuit.
Adams alleged the defendant, identified as “Officer Martinez,” would touch his food with bare hands that were “contaminated with body waste.” On three separate occasions in November 2015, Adams accused Martinez of putting “light brown matter,” “unknown red matter,” and “green and white saliva” on his tray or meals.
Adams, who was housed at the U.S. Penitentiary in Florence, said that as a result of the “poisonous matter” placed in his food, he sustained internal injuries. Adams filed grievances with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which informed him the allegations would be “thoroughly reviewed” but that prisoners “are not entitled to receive information regarding the outcome of the investigation.”
Claiming a violation of his Eight Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, Adams filed a federal lawsuit. He sought $160,000 in damages.
The government moved to dismiss his lawsuit, pointing out Adams experienced various medical ailments prior to the alleged food tampering, that he already had “three strikes” for filing frivolous complaints and that there was no Bivens remedy.
After several years of procedural disputes and revelations that the government provided inaccurate information about Adams’ litigation history, U.S. Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter acknowledged last year that the Supreme Court’s precedent definitively barred Adams’ lawsuit against Martinez.
The 10th Circuit panel agreed Adams’ lawsuit did not fall into the limited categories of claims permitted against federal officials.
“Mr. Adams’s claim seeks to expand Bivens to a new context,” wrote Chief Judge Jerome A. Holmes. Instead, Adams needed to seek relief through the prison grievance system — which had already informed Adams he was not entitled to know the outcome of any investigation into food tampering.
The case is Adams v. Martinez.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
