Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00094/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00094-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 -

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Etop Morgan Ekwere,

 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Tracy Branch; Doctor Luiz Rodriguez;

Denise Williams; United States of America,

 Defendants.

CV-04-0094-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4(m) and Plaint iff’s motion for extension of time for service of process.

Docs. ##18, 26. Plaintiff filed this pro se action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging violation of his right s under the

Eight h Amendment to the United States Constitution. Doc. #1, Counts #1-3. Plaintiff also

filed a claim against the United States under the Federal T ort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28

U.S.C. § 1346, for the tortious acts allegedly committed by its employees. Id., Count #4. 

Plaintiff claims that Defendants caused unnecessary pain and suffering through

their deliberate delay in providing prompt medical care, resulting in t he loss of his left eye.

Doc. #1. Defendants argue that as Public Health Service Officers they are immune from suit

for act s committed within the scope of their employment. They ask the Court to dismiss

this action as to them and deny Plaintiff’s motion for extension as moot. Doc. # 29.

In Bivens, the Supreme Court established a right for victims to recover damages for

constitutional violations by federal officials. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 390-97. The Court

Case 2:04-cv-00094-DGC-JRI Document 40 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

noted t wo exceptions to this rule. Id. at 396-97. The pertinent exception for this case is

that a Bivens action may not be maintained when “defendants show that Congress has

provided an alternative remedy which it explicitly declared to be a substitute for recovery

directly under the Constitution and viewed as equally effective.” Carlson v. Green, 466

U.S. 14, 18-19 (1980). 

T he Public Health Service Act provides that an action against the United Stat es

under the FTCA is the exclusive remedy for 

personal injury, including death, resulting from the performance of medical,

surgical, dental, or related functions, including the conduct of clinical studies

or investigation, by any commissioned officer or employee of the Public

Health Service while acting within the scope of his office or employment. 

42 U.S.C. § 233(a). In Carlson, the Supreme Court cited this section as an example of a

statutory provision by which Congress has made the FTCA the sole remedy for an inmate

whose injuries were caused by Public Health Service Officers acting within the scope of

t heir employment. See Carlson, 466 U.S. at 20; see also Kitchen v. United States, 741

F.Supp. 182, 184 (D. Alaska 1989) (holding that, pursuant to § 233(a), the FTCA is the

exclusive remedy for medical malpractice claims against employees of the Public Health

Service.)

Defendants have filed a Notice of Subst it ut ion of the United States for Individual

Defendants Tracy Branch, Dr. Luiz Rodriguez, and Denise Williams (Doc. #28), attaching

a sworn declaration by U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton that these Defendants were “all Public

Healt h Service employees . . . acting within the scope of their employment” during the

events at issue in this case. Doc. # 28. Plaint iff does not dispute this fact, and even notes

in his complaint that each of t he defendants was employed within a division of the Public

Health Services at the time of the alleged events. Doc. #1 at 4, 5, 6. 

Because the FTCA claim against the United States constitutes the sole remedy

available to Plaintiff under § 233(a), Plaintiff cannot bring a Bivens action against

Defendants Branch, Rodriguez, or Williams. The claims against these Defendants will be

dismissed. 

Case 2:04-cv-00094-DGC-JRI Document 40 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant s’ Motion to Dismiss the individual Defendants (Doc. #18) is

granted.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time for Service of Process (Doc. #26) is

denied. 

DATED this 28th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-00094-DGC-JRI Document 40 Filed 11/30/05 Page 3 of 3