Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03592/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03592-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sylvester Martin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-3592

___________

SYLVESTER MARTIN,

Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(M.D. Pa No. 1-13-cv-00203)

District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 14, 2016

Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: April 18, 2016)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

Sylvester Martin, a federal prisoner, appeals from the District Court’s orders 

dismissing his complaint and denying reconsideration. We will affirm.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-3592 Document: 003112266055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2016
2

I.

Martin alleges that, while he was incarcerated at USP-Canaan in June of 2011, he 

and other inmates contracted salmonella after the prison served them tainted chicken. He 

filed suit pro se naming the United States as the sole defendant and asserting a claim 

under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). He also asserted constitutional claims 

based on his medical care and the denial of his access to the courts and interference with 

his ability to submit grievances.

The Government filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Martin failed to exhaust 

his administrative remedies as required by the FTCA, see 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), and it 

attached a declaration stating that the Bureau of Prisons has no record of Martin having 

submitted an administrative claim. The Government also argued that Martin failed to 

state constitutional claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal 

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), because liability under Bivens extends only to 

individual governmental officials (none of whom Martin had named) and not to the 

United States itself. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-85 (1994).

A Magistrate Judge entered an order notifying the parties that he would treat the 

Government’s motion as one for summary judgment and directing Martin to file a 

response by January 3, 2014. The order also advised Martin that, if he failed to respond, 

the Government’s motion could be granted as unopposed. Martin did not file a response 

by the deadline. Shortly thereafter, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and 

recommended that the District Court grant the Government’s motion. The Magistrate 

Case: 14-3592 Document: 003112266055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2016
3

Judge concluded that Martin’s complaint should be dismissed for his failure to file a 

response, but he also concluded that the complaint should be dismissed on the merits for 

the reasons argued by the Government.

Martin had mailed to the District Court a motion for an extension of time to 

respond before the Magistrate Judge issued his report, but the District Court did not 

receive and docket it until shortly thereafter. Martin sought more time to respond 

because he had been transferred to a different facility. The District Court construed the 

motion as a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 

report and granted Martin approximately five weeks to object. Martin later filed another 

motion for an extension on the basis of another transfer, and the District Court granted 

that request as well and gave Martin over two more months. 

Martin instead filed yet another motion for an extension based on yet another 

prison transfer. He filed that motion more than four months after his response to the 

Government’s motion initially was due and more than three months after his initial 

extended deadline to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report. Martin’s 26-page 

motion raised various arguments on the merits, attached various items of evidence, and 

otherwise belied his continuing assertion that conditions in prison prevented him from 

filing a substantive response. The District Court denied Martin’s request for an 

additional extension, adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, and dismissed 

Case: 14-3592 Document: 003112266055 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/18/2016
4

Martin’s complaint. Martin filed two motions for reconsideration, and the District Court 

denied those motions as well. Martin appeals.1

II.

We previously directed the parties to brief the following two issues: “[1] whether, 

in light of Martin’s pro se prisoner status, the District Court’s dismissal under Local Rule 

7.6 and for failure to prosecute was appropriate . . ., and [2] whether Martin should have 

been granted leave to amend his complaint to name individual defendants with respect to 

his constitutional claims.” Martin, however, has not addressed these issues. To the 

contrary, his brief consists almost entirely of arguments addressed to the constitutionality

of his criminal conviction, which has no bearing on his claims.

2

 

 

1 Martin’s notice of appeal mentions only the District Court’s initial order denying 

reconsideration, but the Government concedes that it brings up for review the underlying 

dismissal order as well and we will liberally construe it to do so. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the grant of a motion to 

dismiss. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 226 (3d Cir. 2004). To the extent that the 

District Court’s ruling may constitute the functional equivalent of the entry of summary 

judgment, we exercise plenary review as well. See Byrd v. Shannon, 715 F.3d 117, 127 

n.4 (3d Cir. 2013). We review the denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See

Santini v. Fuentes, 795 F.3d 410, 416 (3d Cir. 2015).

2 We affirmed Martin’s conviction and his 276-month prison sentence at United States v. 

Martin, 311 F. App’x 517 (3d Cir. 2008). Martin collaterally challenged his sentence 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but the District Court denied his § 2255 motion in 2010 and 

Martin did not appeal. (M.D. Pa. Crim. No. 1-03-cr-00360-001, ECF No. 299.) Martin 

requested immediate release from prison in the complaint at issue here, but he did not 

assert any actual claim in that regard and no such claim would have been proper. 

Martin’s brief also asserts substantive claims unrelated to those that he presented to the 

District Court. We will not consider claims presented for the first time on appeal.

Case: 14-3592 Document: 003112266055 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/18/2016
5

We nevertheless have reviewed the District Court’s rulings, and we will affirm its 

dismissal on the merits for the reasons that it and the Magistrate Judge explained. First, 

we agree that Martin has failed to exhaust his salmonella-related FTCA claim. The 

Government has submitted evidence that Martin never exhausted such a claim, and 

Martin has not rebutted that evidence. To the contrary, some of the evidence that Martin 

submitted confirms his failure to exhaust. (ECF No. 39 at 15.)

Second, we agree that Martin has failed to state a Bivens claim. Martin named 

only the United States as a defendant, and liability under Bivens extends only to 

individual governmental officials. See FDIC, 510 U.S. at 484-85. Despite being on 

notice of this issue since the Government moved to dismiss his complaint in December of 

2013, and despite our express direction to address this issue on appeal, Martin to this day 

has not specified any particular claim that he wishes to assert against any particular 

individual defendant. 

Finally, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s denial of 

reconsideration. Although the District Court may not have addressed some of the issues 

that Martin raised in his various motions for extensions of time, those arguments did not 

state a basis for reconsideration for the reasons explained above.

III.

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Martin’s 

motions for leave to file an overlength brief and to withdraw his “all writs motion for 

Case: 14-3592 Document: 003112266055 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/18/2016
6

default of judgment” and “entry of judgment” are granted. To the extent that Martin’s 

filings in this Court can be construed to request additional relief, they are denied.

Case: 14-3592 Document: 003112266055 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/18/2016