Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 03-2188 SECTION: "R" (1)
December 5, 2003
ORDER AND REASONS
Defendant United States of America moves to partially dismiss plaintiff's claims under Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6). Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion.
I. Background and Procedural History
In October 2000, plaintiff Brandon James pleaded guilty to one count of using a communication device to facilitate the distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 834(b). The Court sentenced James to four years probation. After several probation violations, the Court revoked James's probation in May 2002. The Court sentenced James to nine months imprisonment for violating the terms of his probation.
Plaintiff alleges that his release date was August 7, 2002. Plaintiff alleges that the United States, through the Federal Bureau of Prisons, United States Department of Justice, failed to release James until October 8, 2002. In August 2003, plaintiff sued the United States, alleging that the government is liable to him for improperly calculating his sentence; false imprisonment; unlawful detention; and for violating his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Plaintiff also alleges that the United States is liable to him for all other acts of negligence.
Defendant now moves to dismiss plaintiff's § 1986 and Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the alternative, defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
"Where the defendant's challenge to the court's jurisdiction is also a challenge to the existence of a federal cause of action, the proper course of action for the district court . . . is to find that jurisdiction exists and deal with the objection as a direct attack on the merits of plaintiff's case." Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 415 (5th Cir. 1981); see also Tanglewood East Homeowners v. Charles-Thomas, Inc., 849 F.2d 1568, 1572 (5th Cir. 1988) (same). Therefore, when a defendant moves to dismiss a plaintiff's claims under Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6), the Court must first determine whether plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim. See Tanglewood East Homeowners, 849 F.2d at 1572.
In a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b) (6), the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996); American Waste Pollution Control Co. v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 949 F.2d 1384, 1386 (5th Cir. 1991). The Court must resolve doubts as to the sufficiency of the claim in plaintiff's favor. Vulcan Materials Company v. City of Tehuacana, 238 F.3d 382, 387 (5th Cir. 2001). Dismissal is warranted if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Id.; Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 514 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 28 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 1994)).
III. LAW AND ARGUMENT
a. 42 U.S.C. § 1986 Claim
Section 1986 provides that [e]very person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured . . . for all damages caused by such wrongful act . . .42 U.S.C. § 1986 (emphasis added). Pursuant to the unambiguous language of this provision, liability under § 1986 is derivative of liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Galloway v. Johnson, 817 F.2d 1154, 1159 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1987). Section 1985 allows a plaintiff to recover from persons who conspire to deprive him of the equal protection of the laws. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). In order to recover under § 1986, a plaintiff must allege a cause of action under § 1985. There can be no violation of § 1986 without a violation of § 1985. See Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, 968 F.2d 286, 292 (2d Cir. 1992); Galloway, 817 F.2d at 1159 n. 2; Hagardon v. Hingle, 2003 WL 22174273, No. Civ. A. 03-607, at *3 (E.D. La. 2003).
Here, plaintiff failed to bring a claim under § 1985 and failed to allege any conspiracy in his complaint. Because plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim under § 1985, he may not recover under the interrelated, dependent cause of action under § 1986. Galloway, 817 F.2d at 859 n. 2; Hamilton v. Chaffin, 506 F.2d 904, 913-14 (5th Cir. 1975). The Court therefore dismisses plaintiff's Section 1986 claim against the United States.
b. Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Claims
Plaintiff also alleges that defendant violated plaintiff's constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Eighth Amendment guarantees an individual's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. See U.S. CONST, amend. VIII. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees an individual's right to the equal protection of the laws and to due process under the law. See U.S. CONST, amend. XIV, § 1.
Although plaintiff sues under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Court characterizes plaintiff's claims as Bivens claims. See, e.g., McGuire v. Turnbo, 137 F.3d 321, 322 (5th Cir. 1998) (stating that plaintiff sued under Bivens when plaintiff alleged violations of his rights under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments); Spina v. Aaron, 821 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1987) (same). In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the FBI, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff could bring a cause of action for damages under the United States Constitution for violations of his constitutional rights by federal agents. 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971). The Bivens Court restricted its holding, however, to suits against individual federal agents who violated constitutional rights. See id. A Bivens action may not be brought against a federal agency or the United States. See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 483-86 (1994).
Here, plaintiff sues the United States through the Federal Bureau of Prisons, United States Department of Justice. Bivens does not allow this. There is no indication that plaintiff sues any individual officer. Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a Bivens claim against the United States or its agencies.
Because the Court finds that plaintiffs has failed to state a claim under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Court declines to reach the issue of whether the United States has waived its sovereign immunity.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant's partial motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim. The Court dismisses plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 and under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.