Smith v. Carvajal
| Citation | 558 F.Supp.3d 340 |
| Decision Date | 01 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-2062-B |
| Parties | Caleb SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Michael CARVAJAL, Kristin Zook, and United States of America, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Randall Lee Kallinen, Kallinen Law PLLC, Houston, TX, Scott H. Palmer, Scott H. Palmer PC, Addison, TX, for Plaintiff.
Tami C. Parker, US Attorney's Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendants.
Before the Court are a motion to dismiss (Doc. 13) filed by the Government and a motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) filed by Defendants Michael Carvajal and Kristin Zook.1 For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motions and DISMISSES Plaintiff Caleb Smith's amended complaint (Doc. 12).
On February 26, 2016, Smith was sentenced to 235 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. J. at 1–4, United States v. Smith , No. 4:15-CR-0214-A-2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2016), ECF No. 60; Doc. 12, Am. Compl., ¶ 9. Smith, who is thirty-six years old, is currently incarcerated at Seagoville Federal Correctional Institution (FCI), with a statutory release date of November 4, 2031.3
In April 2020, near the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, Smith filed a motion for compassionate release in the court that sentenced him—the district court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division—citing "serious or life[-]threatening complications if he contracts COVID-19" as the basis for his requested release. Mot. at 2, United States v. Smith , No. 4:15-CR-0214-A-2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2020), ECF No. 93. The court denied Smith's motion because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Order at 1, United States v. Smith , No. 4:15-CR-0214-A-2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2020), ECF No. 94; Final J. at 1, United States v. Smith , No. 4:15-CR-0214-A-2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2020), ECF No. 95.
On April 13, 2020, and July 3, 2020, Smith's counsel notified Zook4 —the Warden of Seagoville FCI—of the "medical situation involving" Smith. Doc. 12, Am. Compl., ¶ 16. Additionally, through his counsel, Smith sent three additional letters to Zook and Carvajal—the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)—dated July 9, 2020, July 19, 2020, and July 29, 2020, "alerting them to the situation[.]" Id. ¶¶ 13–15. Zook and Carvajal did not respond to these letters. Id.
On August 4, 2020, Smith filed a complaint (Doc. 1) in this Court against the Individual Defendants and subsequently amended his complaint on February 23, 2021. See generally Doc. 12, Am. Compl. In his amended complaint, Smith asserts "a claim against [the Individual] Defendants for their deliberately indifferent, negligent, and grossly negligent medical care related to C[OVID]-19." Id. ¶ 20 (footnote omitted). Smith also asserts a claim against the Individual Defendants for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents , 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Id. ¶ 19. Smith requests thirteen categories of damages, as well as "any other such relief as is deemed just and proper." Id. ¶ 21.
By a notice filed on February 2, 2021, the Government substituted itself for the Individual Defendants, pursuant to the Westfall Act. Doc. 8, Gov't's Notice. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss (Docs. 13 & 15) on March 9, 2021. The motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for review.
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm'n , 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998). For that reason, they can adjudicate claims only when subject matter jurisdiction is expressly conferred by the Constitution and federal statute. Id. " Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides the vehicle through which" a party may challenge federal jurisdiction. Armstrong v. Tygart , 886 F. Supp. 2d 572, 584 (W.D. Tex. 2012) (citations omitted).
"A Rule 12(b)(1) motion can mount either a facial or factual challenge." MacKenzie v. Castro , 2016 WL 3906084, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 19, 2016). A facial challenge occurs "when a party files a Rule 12(b)(1) motion without including evidence." Id. A factual challenge, by contrast, occurs when a party supports its Rule 12(b)(1) motion with evidence. Id.
In both cases, the burden of proof "is on the party asserting jurisdiction." Ramming v. United States , 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). Yet that is no high bar: "[I]t is extremely difficult to dismiss a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." Santerre v. AGIP Petrol. Co. , 45 F. Supp. 2d 558, 566 (S.D. Tex. 1999) (quoting Garcia v. Copenhaver, Bell & Assocs. , 104 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 1997) ).
In reviewing a facial challenge, courts consider just "the allegations in the complaint because they are presumed to be true." Paterson v. Weinberger , 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 1981). But this is a factual challenge. Plaintiffs enjoy no presumption of truthfulness here. See Williamson v. Tucker , 645 F.2d 404, 412–13 (5th Cir. 1981). Instead, they must "prove subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence." MacKenzie , 2016 WL 3906084, at *2 (citing Paterson , 644 F.2d at 523 ). To that end, each party may submit affidavits, testimony, and other evidentiary materials in support of their positions. Paterson , 644 F.2d at 523.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) allows for dismissal of an action in which the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant. "The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when (1) that defendant has established ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction over that defendant does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ " Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson Co., Inc. , 9 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) ). "Both prongs of the due process test must be met" to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. See id.
A nonresident defendant's minimum contacts may either support an assertion of specific or general jurisdiction. WNS Inc. v. Farrow , 884 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir. 1989). A court may exercise specific jurisdiction when a cause of action arises out of a defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum. Dalton v. R & W Marine, Inc. , 897 F.2d 1359, 1361–62 (5th Cir. 1990). Alternatively, a court is said to have general jurisdiction when a defendant has engaged in continuous and systematic contacts with the forum. Id.
The party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the requisite minimum contacts. WNS , 884 F.2d at 203. Further, "uncontroverted allegations in the plaintiff's complaint must be taken as true, and conflicts between the facts contained in the parties’ affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor for purposes of determining whether a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction exists." D.J. Invs., Inc. v. Metzeler Motorcycle Tire Agent Gregg, Inc. , 754 F.2d 542, 546 (5th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). If a plaintiff's complaint fails to state such a claim, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a defendant to file a motion to dismiss. In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "[t]he court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." In re Katrina , 495 F.3d at 205 (quotation marks omitted) ). The Court will "not look beyond the face of the pleadings to determine whether relief should be granted based on the alleged facts." Spivey v. Robertson , 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). However, the Court may "take judicial notice of matters of public record" when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Norris , 500 F.3d at 461 n.9.
To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff "must plead facts sufficient to show that her claim has substantive plausibility."
Johnson v. City of Shelby , 574 U.S. 10, 12, 135 S.Ct. 346, 190 L.Ed.2d 309 (2014). That means "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rivers v. Carvajal
...to establish minimum contacts for a Louisiana court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Director Carvajal in his personal capacity. See Smith, supra. For this reason, against Director Carvajal should be dismissed. C. Plaintiff's Complaint Fails to State a Claim Against Officer Welch Defe......
-
Rivers v. Carvajal
...to establish minimum contacts for a Louisiana court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Director Carvajal in his personal capacity. See Smith, supra. For this reason, against Director Carvajal should be dismissed. C. Plaintiff's Complaint Fails to State a Claim Against Officer Welch Defe......