Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00881/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00881-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

GABRIEL GONZALEZ PLAINTIFF 

Reg. #30515-112 

v. No: 4:19-cv-00881 DPM-PSH 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEFENDANT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following Recommendation has been sent to Chief United States District 

Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. You may file written objections to all or part of this 

Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the 

factual and/or legal basis for your objection, and (2) be received by the Clerk of this 

Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you 

may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. 

DISPOSITION 

 Plaintiff Gabriel Gonzalez filed a pro se complaint on December 9, 2019, 

while incarcerated at the Forrest City Low Federal Correctional Institution (Doc. No. 

2). Gonzalez was ordered to file an amended complaint to clarify his claims, 

specifically to clarify whether he sues solely under the Federal Tort Claims Act 

Case 4:19-cv-00881-DPM Document 7 Filed 03/18/20 Page 1 of 5
(FTCA) or also intends to raise constitutional claims.1

 Doc. No. 5. Gonzalez 

subsequently filed an amended complaint clarifying that he sues solely under the 

FTCA. Doc. No. 6. For the reasons stated herein, Gonzalez’s claims are barred by 

the United States’ sovereign immunity and should be dismissed for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. 

I. Screening Standard 

 Before docketing the complaint, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Court 

must review the complaint to identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint if 

it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is frivolous if 

“it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 

319, 325 (1989). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not allege 

                                                             1

 In its Order instructing Gonzalez to amend his complaint, the Court noted that he 

mentioned access to the courts in his original complaint. See Doc. No. 5 n. 1. The Court 

explained that violations of the U.S. Constitution may be raised against federal officials 

in a Bivens claim, but those claims do not reach every constitutional violation. See id. 

(“However, the Supreme Court has only recognized a Bivens remedy in the context of a 

Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim, a Fifth Amendment gender discrimination 

claim, and an Eighth Amendment medical care claim. See Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S.Ct. 

1843, 1854-1855 (2017). Expanding Bivens claims to other contexts is disfavored. Id. at 

1857 . . .”). 

Case 4:19-cv-00881-DPM Document 7 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 5
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). However, a pro se plaintiff’s 

allegations must be construed liberally. Burke v. North Dakota Dept. of Corr. & 

Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-1044 (8th Cir.2002) (citations omitted). 

II. Analysis 

 Gonzalez alleges that certain personal property, including legal papers and 

materials, were confiscated and disposed of in November 2018 by the prison’s 

property search team. See Doc. No. 6 at 3-4. He also complains that his property 

was taken as a means of mass punishment in response to the actions of other inmates. 

Id. at 6. Gonzalez seeks an award of $5 million. 

 Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the federal government and its 

agencies from suit. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994); Mader v. United 

States, 654 F.3d 794, 797 (8th Cir. 2011). Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in 

nature, Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475, and the “terms of [the United States’] consent to be 

sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit,” United States 

v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). The FTCA is a limited waiver of sovereign 

immunity and permits lawsuits against the United States for the torts of its 

employees under limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1); Mader, 654 

F.3d at 797. This waiver is subject to certain procedural requirements and 

exceptions. 

Case 4:19-cv-00881-DPM Document 7 Filed 03/18/20 Page 3 of 5
 Pertinent to this case is the exception found in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c), which 

provides that sovereign immunity is not waived for “[a]ny claim arising in respect 

of . . . the detention of any goods, merchandise, or other property by . . . any other 

law enforcement officer . . .”. In Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 228 

(2008), the United States Supreme Court held that the phrase “any other law 

enforcement officer” covers all law enforcement officers, including Bureau of Prison 

officers. The Supreme Court noted “that § 2680(c), far from maintaining sovereign 

immunity for the entire universe of claims against law enforcement officers, does so 

only for claims ‘arising in respect of’ the ‘detention’ of property.” Id.2

 Because Gonzalez’s FTCA claim is premised on the retention and destruction 

of his personal property by prison officers, his claim is barred by the United States’ 

sovereign immunity and should be dismissed without prejudice. 

                                                             2 Ali concerned a claim brought by a prisoner who alleged that certain items of his 

personal property were lost after BOP employees handled them during his transfer from a 

federal prison in Georgia to a federal prison in Kentucky. See also Antonelli v. Marquez, 

No. 2:08CV00003 JMM/HDY, 2008 WL 2782705, at *9 (E.D. Ark. July 14, 2008) 

(plaintiff’s claim based on loss and/or damage to personal property during a transfer from 

one federal prison to another barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c)); Jackson v. Santini, No. 15-

CV-3151 (PJS/TNL), 2016 WL 11198352, at *4 (D. Minn. Nov. 10, 2016) (Plaintiff’s 

FTCA claim that BOP employees took certain items belonging to Plaintiff following a 

unitwide sweep fails as a matter of law); Butler v. United States, No. 09–cv–147 

(PAM/AJB), 2009 WL 3028902, at *3 (D. Minn. Sept. 17, 2009) (FTCA does not apply 

to claims based on allegations that BOP employees detained, lost, stole, damaged or 

destroyed plaintiff’s personal property). 

Case 4:19-cv-00881-DPM Document 7 Filed 03/18/20 Page 4 of 5
III. Conclusion 

 For the reasons stated herein, it is recommended that: 

 1. Gonzalez’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

 2. Dismissal of this action count as a “strike” within the meaning of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g).3

 3. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma 

pauperis appeal from the order adopting this recommendation and accompanying 

judgment would not be taken in good faith. 

 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 18th day of March, 2020. 

 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

                                                             3

 The PLRA’s three-strikes provision states that a prisoner cannot proceed in 

forma pauperis in a civil action if: 

the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or 

detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United 

States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or 

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner 

is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Case 4:19-cv-00881-DPM Document 7 Filed 03/18/20 Page 5 of 5