Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-94-05182/USCOURTS-caDC-94-05182-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed October 8, 1996

No. 94-5182

ANTHONY HARPER,

APPELLANT

v.

JERRY T. WILLIFORD, DIRECTOR,

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, SOUTHEAST REGION;

JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL;

DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

-

On Motions for Summary Reversal and Summary Affirmance

-

Anthony Harper, pro se, was on the motion for summary reversal.

R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant United States Attorney, was on the motion for summary affirmance,

for appellees.

Before: WILLIAMS, HENDERSON, and TATEL, Circuit Judges. 

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM: In this case we are asked to decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 4042 creates a private

right of action against officials of the Bureau of Prisons, for alleged deficiencies in a federal prison.

We join our sister circuits in concluding that section 4042 does not create a private right of action

against federal officials.

Anthony Harper was confined for several months in a temporary federal detention center in

Fort Gordon, Georgia, in 1989. Along with two fellow inmates, he filed this action in the Southern

USCA Case #94-5182 Document #227843 Filed: 10/08/1996 Page 1 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1

In 1994 Congress amended section 4042 by adding new provisions related to the obligation

to provide notice of a federal prisoner's impending release. Those amendments are not relevant

here. 

District of Georgia against the regional director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), alleging

inadequate conditions and seeking transfer out of the Fort Gordon facility.

Plaintiffs were transferred to other facilities in late 1990, and the temporary federal facility

was closed; the defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the action as moot. A Magistrate Judge

granted leave to file an amended complaint, which added additional defendants and raised a claim for

personal liability pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The

Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion to dismiss, reasoning that although Bivens

liability is not available against supervisory officials under a respondeatsuperiortheory, the claimfor

damages might nonetheless survive if construed as an action alleging a violation of defendants'

statutory duty to ensure that the conditions of the prison meet constitutional standards. The

Magistrate Judge determined that 18 U.S.C. § 4042 gave plaintiffs a cause of action directly against

BOP officials. The district court in Georgia subsequently transferred the case to the district court

here, which granted the motion to dismiss, and denied Harper's Rule 59(e) motion.

Section 4042 sets out, in general terms, BOP's responsibility for the "management and

regulation" of federal penal and correctional institutions, directing BOP to "provide for the

safekeeping, care, and subsistence," as well as the "protection, instruction, and discipline" of the

prisoners. 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a).1

Harper's complaint seeks to impose personal liability on BOP officials for the alleged

inadequacies at the Fort Gordon facility. Harper urges us to read section 4042 as creating a private

right of action against BOP officials. Other circuits have refused to adopt this argument. See, e.g.,

Chinchello v. Fenton, 805 F.2d 126, 134 (3d Cir. 1986) (statute was not intended to assign any

specific responsibility to the Director of the Bureau personally or to create a private right of action);

Ortega v. Rowe, 796 F.2d 765, 767 (5th Cir. 1986) (same). This conclusion is consistent with the

Supreme Court's unwillingness to presume the existence of a private right of action where none is

explicitly articulated by Congress. See Middlesex County Sewage Authority v. Sea Clammers, 453

USCA Case #94-5182 Document #227843 Filed: 10/08/1996 Page 2 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

U.S. 1, 13 (1981).

Although section 4042 sets out the standard of care owed by the Bureau of Prisons in

negligence actions, see United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150, 164-165 (1963), Harper's complaint

alleges unconstitutional conditions, not negligent acts. See also Williams v. United States, 405 F.2d

951, 954 (9th Cir. 1969) (the only cause of action available through 18 U.S.C. § 4042 is pursuant to

the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)). We cannot construe the case as arising under the FTCA

because constitutional claims are not cognizable under the FTCA. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(2)(A).

Because section 4042 does not create a private right of action we affirm the district court's

dismissal of appellant's complaint. Appellant's other grounds on appeal are disposed of in an order

issued today.

USCA Case #94-5182 Document #227843 Filed: 10/08/1996 Page 3 of 3