2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-2-2012

Roosevelt Carabali Ruiz v. Fed Bureau of Prisons

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3211

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Roosevelt Carabali Ruiz v. Fed Bureau of Prisons" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1046.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1046
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3211

___________

ROOSEVELT CARABALI RUIZ,

Appellant

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; 

MOSHANNON VALLEY CORRECTIONAL CENTER; 

CAMERON LINDSAY, MVCC Warden; 

CORNELL COMPANIES, INC.;

MS. M DAWSON, Adm. Director;

DR. SONTHEITER; 

MR. BUCKLES, Associate Warden;

HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 10-cv-00068)

District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 19, 2012

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Filed: May 2, 2012)

___________

OPINION

___________
2

PER CURIAM.

Roosevelt Carabali Ruiz, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s 

order dismissing his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). For the 

following reasons, we will affirm.

I.

Ruiz is a federal prisoner who was formerly incarcerated at the Moshannon Valley 

Correctional Center (“Moshannon Valley”), a private correctional facility in Philipsburg, 

Pennsylvania. In March 2010, he filed a complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that he 

had been denied adequate medical care at Moshannon Valley in violation of his rights 

under the Eighth Amendment.1 In the complaint, Ruiz named as defendants: the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and BOP Director Harley G. Lappin; Cornell Companies, Inc. 

(“Cornell”), the private company that owns and operates Moshannon Valley; Moshannon 

Valley; Warden Cameron Lindsay; Associate Warden Buckles; Administrative Director 

M. Dawson; and Dr. Sontheiter. 

The matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge who found that the complaint failed 

to allege sufficient facts to state an Eighth Amendment claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 

 

1

 Although Ruiz sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as Bivens, his suit is 

properly construed as an action under Bivens, not § 1983, because it is against federal 

(and alleged federal) actors, not state actors. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 389 (recognizing a 

private cause of action to recover damages against federal actors for constitutional 

violations). 
3

1915(e)(2)(B), but advised Ruiz that he was permitted to amend his complaint to correct 

the defects. Ruiz then filed an amended complaint in which he explained that he was 

suffering from a boil in his anus, hemorrhoids, pain in his legs, a stomach ache, and an 

“extra collar bone towards the neck.” (Am. Compl., Dist. Ct. Dkt # 8, ¶ 35.) He also 

stated that he excreted blood during bowel movements. According to Ruiz, he was seen 

by a doctor at some point, but his complaints were ignored, his treatment delayed, and his 

care inadequate. 

After reviewing the amended complaint, the Magistrate Judge determined that 

Ruiz had succeeded in stating an Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Sontheiter insofar 

as he alleged that the doctor refused to take any action to treat Ruiz’s passing of blood 

during bowel movements, but had not stated any other claims against any other 

defendants. The Magistrate Judge directed Ruiz to provide copies of his amended 

complaint and instructions for service upon Dr. Sontheiter.

Instead of complying with the Magistrate Judge’s instructions to serve the 

amended complaint, Ruiz filed a number of evidentiary documents concerning his Eighth 

Amendment claims—primarily medical records and grievance reports.

2

 The Magistrate 

Judge reviewed the documents and determined that they “dispel[led] any claim that Dr. 

Sontheiter or anyone else was deliberately indifferent to Ruiz’[s] medical needs.” (R & 

 

2

 The proceedings were stayed for several months while Ruiz was housed in 

Moshannon Valley’s special housing unit where he was precluded from using the law 

library. Ruiz was eventually transferred to a facility in Georgia and regained access to 

his legal materials. 
4

R, Dist. Ct. Dkt. #25, at p. 1.) Accordingly, he recommended that Ruiz’s Eighth 

Amendment claim be dismissed. He noted, however, that Ruiz might be able to state a 

negligence claim pursuant to the District Court’s diversity jurisdiction “[b]ecause [he] is 

now in another state,” and allowed him another opportunity to amend. (Id. at p. 3.)

Ruiz filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as 

well as a second amended complaint. Although his first amended complaint focused on 

the inadequate treatment he received for problems with his anus and bowel movements, 

his second amended complaint alleged that Dr. Sontheiter failed to adequately treat the 

back pain he suffers as a result of “congenital degeneration due to his poliomyelitis.” (2d 

Am. Compl., Dist. Ct. Dkt. # 26, at ¶ 11.) He also added a claim that he was transferred 

to the facility in Georgia in retaliation for filing grievances concerning his medical 

treatment and for filing the complaint in this case.

The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

and dismissed the complaints in their entirety, apparently pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B), on the ground that “[t]he complaint, as repeatedly amended, fails to allege 

either negligence or deliberate indifference on the part of any defendant.” (Mem. Order, 

Dist. Ct. Dkt # 28, at p. 1.) Ruiz timely appealed from the District Court’s order.

II.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of 

a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim is plenary, requiring 
5

us to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor. Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 

220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). 

Ruiz’s sole argument on appeal is that the District Court erred in dismissing his 

Eighth Amendment claim.3 We have reviewed the record and conclude that dismissal 

was proper, although for different reasons than those stated by the District Court. See

United States v. Sanchez, 562 F.3d 275, 279 (3d Cir. 2009) (“An appellate court may 

affirm a result reached by the District Court on different reasons, as long as the record 

supports the judgment.”) First, Ruiz may not bring a Bivens claim against the BOP. See

Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 71 (2001) (explaining that Bivens claims 

may be brought only against individual federal officers, not the United States or the 

BOP). Moreover, no action lies under Bivens against Moshannon Valley or Cornell, the 

private corporation that owns and operates it. See id. at 63. Ruiz also failed to state a 

claim against the individual defendants who were employed by Cornell, as the Supreme 

Court recently held that a Bivens claim is not cognizable against employees of a private 

prison under these circumstances. See Minneci v. Pollard, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 617, 

 

3 As noted above, Ruiz attempted to raise a retaliation claim in his second 

amended complaint. It appears, however, that the Magistrate Judge and District Court 

overlooked this claim when they dismissed the case on the ground that the complaints 

failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim. That said, Ruiz does not challenge the 

District Court’s error on appeal—in fact, he does not mention the retaliation claim at all. 

While we construe the submissions of a pro se appellant liberally, we must conclude that 

Ruiz intended to abandon this claim. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th 

Cir. 2008). Similarly, we note that, to the extent that Ruiz was given an opportunity to 

state a negligence claim against Dr. Sontheiter, he never did so and does not argue 

otherwise now. 
6

626 (2012) (refusing to imply the existence of a Bivens action where “a federal prisoner 

seeks damages from privately employed personnel working at a privately operated 

federal prison, where the conduct allegedly amounts to a violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, and where that conduct is of a kind that typically falls within the scope of 

traditional state tort law (such as the conduct involving improper medical care at issue 

here)”). Finally, while Ruiz’s claim against BOP Director Lappin could have proceeded 

if properly pled, he did not allege in any of his complaints that Director Lappin had any 

personal involvement in the denial of his medical care, and a Bivens claim cannot be 

premised upon a theory of respondeat superior. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, -- U.S. ---, 129 S. 

Ct. 1937, 1948-49 (2009); Argueta v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 643 

F.3d 60, 71-72 (3d Cir. 2011). 

III.

For these reasons, we will affirm.