United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case comes before me on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
. For the following reasons, I GRANT the Motion to
Dismiss. Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Pond and Miller
are dismissed with prejudice, and Plaintiffs claims against
the United States are dismissed without prejudice.
Curtis Lamont Brown is currently incarcerated in the custody
of the United States and located at the Federal Correctional
Institution, Sheridan ("FCI Sheridan"). Brown has
filed a Bivens action against Defendants Darrell
Miller, a corrections officer at FCI Sheridan, Jennifer Pond,
a certified nursing assistant at FCI Sheridan, in their
individual capacities. Brown has also filed claims against
the United States as the employer of Pond and Miller. Brown
alleges that over several years Pond misdiagnosed his eye
disease, resulting in pain and the eventual loss of his eye.
also alleges that as Miller was transporting Brown from a
hospital visit back to FCI Sheridan, Miller walked Brown
across wet grass when Brown was wearing ankle shackles,
handcuffs, a black-box restraint device on his hands, and
slide sandals. As Brown entered the transport van, he nearly
slipped on the steps up. Entering behind Brown, Miller fell
and landed on Brown's shackled wrists. Brown informed
Miller that his wrists hurt, but Miller did not remove the
shackles or black-box during the ride back to FCI Sheridan.
Upon returning to FCI Sheridan, Miller took Brown to receive
medical attention for his wrist. Brown alleges that
Miller's fall onto his wrists damaged cartilage and
ligaments, required surgery, and causes him pain and
filed informal and formal grievances regarding his eye and
Miller's fall onto Brown's wrists. Brown exhausted
his administrative remedies for both injuries, then filed
this suit, which Defendants have moved to dismiss.
motion to dismiss will be granted when, viewing the facts in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56
(2007). A court ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion accepts as
true all well-pleaded allegations, but the "[fj actual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level." Id., 550 U.S. at 555.
"A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
of a 12(b)(6) motion is limited to the contents of the
complaint. Enesco Corp. v. Price/Costco, Inc., 146
F.3d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1998). Courts may also
"consider 'documents whose contents are alleged in a
complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but
which are not physically attached to the [plaintiffs]
pleading.'" Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v.
Schwab Invs., 779 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2015).
established that compensable injury [by federal officials] to
a constitutionally protected interest could be vindicated by
a suit for damages invoking the general federal-question
jurisdiction of the federal courts[.]" Butz v.
Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 486 (1978). To bring a
Bivens claim, a plaintiff must allege that the
defendants are (1) federal agents, (2) who violated
plaintiffs constitutional rights, (3) while acting under the
color of federal law. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
brings six claims. The first claim is against Pond for
deliberate indifference to Brown's medical needs in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Brown's second and
third claims are against Miller for use of excessive force
and deliberate indifference. Brown brings negligence and
vicarious liability claims against the United States for
Miller's decision to walk Brown across wet grass and for
Miller falling on Brown's wrist. Brown also bring claims
against the United States for negligent training and direct
liability for not training Miller to walk along designated
paths when transporting inmates, and a claim for medical
negligence for Pond's misdiagnosis of Brown's eye
Claim 1 - Pond's Deliberate Indifference
U.S.C. § 233(a) "grants absolute immunity to Public
Health Service (PHS) officers and employees for actions
arising out of the performance of medical or related
functions within the scope of their employment by barring all
actions against them for such conduct." Hui v.
Castaneda,559 U.S. 799, 806 (2010). "By its terms,
§ 233(a) limits recovery for such conduct to suits
against the United States." Id. The immunity
provided by § 233(a) precludes Bivens actions
against individual PHS officers or employees for harms