### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T June 29, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15925 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 2 2 8 0 7 - C V- J AL J A M E S J . O 'B R I E N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , F E D E R A L B U R E A U O F P R I S O N S , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 29, 2005) B efo re C A RN E S , M A R C U S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:The c omplaint states “Dan,”but pursuant to O’B rien’s request a nd the district court’s 1 order, thenamewa s c or

re c te d tore ad “ Jan”and , th ere fore , isc ha ng e d in thi s opinion

a s w e ll. 2 Jam es J. O ’ B ri en ap p eal s p ro se th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s g ran to f th e d efen d an t s’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s hi s c l a i m s of ne gl i ge nc e unde rthe F e de r a l T ortC l a i m s A c ta nd th e c o u rt’s ru lin g th a t O ’B r ie n f a ile d to r a is e o rn e v e rin te n d e d to r a is e a n E ig h th A m en d m en tcl ai m an d th u s fai l ed t o reach th e d efen d an t s’ m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss a pos s i bl e c l a i m unde rB i ve ns v. S i x U nknow n N a m e d A ge nt s , 403 U . S . 388, 397, 9 1 S .C t. 1 9 9 9 , 2 0 0 5 , 2 9 L .E d .2 d 6 1 9 (1 9 7 1 ). H e f u rth erap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s f a i l ur e t o c ons i de rw he the rone of the de f e nda nt s w a s pr ope r l ys e rve d. F orthe r e a s o n s s t a t e d mo r e f

u l l yb e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. O ’ B ri en, a f

eder al pri soner procee di ng pro se, fi l ed a “ pro se F eder al T ort C om pl ai ntfor M on et ary D am ages ” a gai nstthe U ni t ed S t at es ; the F eder al B ureau of P r i s ons ( “ B O P ” ) ; the F e de r a l D e t e nt i on C e nt e r( “ F D C ” ) i n M i a m i , F l or i da ; J ohn D oe , W a r de n of

the F D C ; A s s oc i a t e W a r de n H ul l e of the F D C ; M . A . S t e rn, D .D .S ., o f

th e F D C ; a n d J .J . J a n , D .D .S ., o f th e F D C , a ll jo in tlya n d s e v e r a lly 1 l i abl e i n the i rof

f i c i a l a nd i ndi vi dua l c apa c i t i e s . O ’ B r i e n’ s c om pl a i nts t a t e d tha the soug htre dres s f

or “ ac tual pai n and suff er i ng and em ot i on al di stre ss , i nj uri es sust ai ned as adi re ctre sul tof the ac t i on s, i nact i on s, and o m i ss i on s of the nam ed D e f e nda nt s a nd of

the i re m pl oy e e s , a ge nt s , s ubor di na t e s , ” pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . §§ 1 3 4 6 ( b ) , 2 6 7 1 e t s e q . ( F e d e r a l T o rt C la im s A c t ( “F T C A ” ) . O ’B r ie n s p e c if ic a lly3

c i t e d t o the j ur i s di c t i on, ve nue , a nd s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons r e qui r e m e nt s of the F T C A . In hi s c om pl ai nt , O ’ B ri en al l eged the fol l ow i ng : (1) he w as i ncar ce ra t ed f r o m F e b ru a ry6 , 1 9 9 9 , th r o u g h F e b ru a ry4 , 2 0 0 2 , w a s p r o te c te d b y“th e E ig h th A m endm ent ’ s prosc ri pt i on agai nstcruel and u nu sual pu ni shm ent , ” and atal l t i m es ha d the r i ghtt o “ r e a s onabl e m e di c a l c a r e tha tw a s the e qui va l e ntt o tha tm e a s ur e of c a r e a c c or de d t o pr i va t e c i t i z e ns , ” i nc l udi ng de nt a l c a r e ; ( 2) he s ubm i tt e d 11 w ri tt en re qu es tform s t o the dent i stcom pl ai ni ng of m ou th p ai n and w as exam i ned a t le a s t 8 s e p a r a te tim e s to a d d r e s s h is c o m p la in ts ; ( 3 ) f r o m J a n u a ry1 8 , 2 0 0 0 , to S e pt e m be r25, 2000, de f e nda nt s D oe , H ul l e , S t e rn, a nd D a n w e r e a w a r e of O ’ B r i e n’ s c ont i nue d c om pl a i nt s of m outh pa i n; ( 4) f

r om S e pt e m be r25, 2000, w he n O ’ B r i e n ha d tw o m ol a r s e xtr a c t e d, unt i l F e brua ry4, 2002, D oe , H ul l e , S t e rn, a nd D a n, w e r e a l l a w a r e of O ’ B r i e n’ s c om pl a i nt s r e ga r di ng hi s tw o r e m a i ni ng m ol ar s; (5) f

rom Janu ary 18, 20 00 , t o S ept em ber 25, 20 00 , S t ern t ol d O ’ B ri en that he ha d be e n pl a c e d on the or a l s ur ge rys c he dul e thr e e s e pa r a t e t i m e s , butde f e nda nt D o e r e m o v e d O ’B r ie n ’s n a m e f r o m th e lis t, th u s c au s in g O ’B r ie n o n g o in g m o u th pa i n i n br e a c h of

the dutyof

r e a s onabl e c a r e ow e d t o hi m ; ( 6) the s a m e dutyof r e a s onabl e c a r e w a s br e a c he d a ga i n be tw e e n F e brua ry27, 2001 a nd F e brua ry4, 2002, w he n the de f

e nda nt s f a i l e d t o pr ovi de r e a s onabl e c a r e t o O ’ B r i e n a f t e rbe i ng4

m ad e aw are o f co n t i n u i n g p ai n fro m O ’ B ri en ’ s rem ai n i n g m o l ars. B a s e d o n th e f

o r e g o in g a lle g a tio n s , O ’B r ie n a r g u e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts exhi bi t ed “ del i bera t e i nd i ff er ence t o h i s m edi ca l needs by: (a ) del ay i ng hi s thri ce s c he dul e d or a l s ur ge ry , a nd f ora n unr e a s onabl yl ong pe r i od of t i m e ; a nd ( b) f

a i l i ng t o res chedul e hi m for f

ol l ow up surgery t o add re ss the re m ai ni ng tw o i m pact ed m ol ar s, agai n for an un re as on abl y l on g p er i od of t i m e. ” O ’ B ri en further a l l eged th a t th e F D C d e f

e n d a n ts w e r e v ic a r io u s lyliab le b a s e d u p o n th e r e a s o n ab ly fore se eabl e kno w l edge thatthei r f ai l ure t o actw ou l d cause O ’ B ri en pai n, they ac t ed i n b ad fa i th, and they c om m i tt ed “ w ant on m i sc on du ctand n egl i gence. ” O ’ B r i e n f

urthe rs t a t e d tha tthe l a w s of the S t a t e of

F l or i dape rm i tt e d the d e f e n d a n ts ’ liab ilityf

o rth e irn e g lig e n t a c ts c o m m itte d w ith in th e s c o p e o f th e ir e m pl oy m e nta nd tha tthe F T C A di d nota l l ow the U ni t e d S t a t e s t o a s s e rts ove r e i gn i m m u n i ty. O ’ B ri en so u g h t , i n t er al i a, $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 i n co m p en sat o ry d am ag es. T he de f e nda nt s s ubs e que nt l yf

i l e d am ot i on t o di s m i s s O ’ B r i e n’ s c om pl a i nt pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C i v. P . 12( b) ( 1) f orl a c k of

s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on. T he defe nd ant s argued thatO ’ B ri en had fai l ed t o exh austhi s a dm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es unde rthe F T C A be c aus e ( 1) he ha d f i l e d a n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve c l a i m w i th the B O P a nd F D C on J ul y16, 2002, butf i l e d hi s F T C A c l a i m i n f e de r a l c ourton S e pt e m be r24, 2 0 0 2 , b ef

o re th e a d m in istrativ e c laim h ad b ee n d ec id ed . B ec au se O ’B rien ’s5

adm i ni stra t i ve cl ai m w as no tdeni ed un t i l D ec em ber 2, 20 02 , the defendant s argued th a t O ’B r ie n ’s F T C A c iv il a c tio n h a d b e e n p r e m a tu r e lyf ile d a n d n o t p r o p e r ly r e f i l e d w i thi n s i x m onths of the de ni a l of

hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve c l a i m a nd, thus , the d is tr ic t c o u rt la c k e d ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth e c la im b e c au s e O ’B r ie n h a d f a ile d to p r o p e r lye x h au s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . T h e d e f e n d a n ts f u rth e ra r g u e d th a t, un der the F T C A , on l y the U ni t ed S t at es w as a properl y nam ed party and , there fore , al l of the i nd i vi du al defe nd ant s and the fe dera l agenci es nam ed as defe nd ant s w er e due t o be di s m i s s e d. F i na l l y , the de f

e nda nt s s uas pont e not e d tha t , a l though O ’ B r i e n’ s c om pl a i nt m ade onl y asi ng l e r ef

er ence t o the E i gh th A m endm entand o ne use of the t erm

“ d el i b erat e i n d i fferen ce, ” an d fu rth erm o re, o n i t s face d i d n o tseekrel i ef ag ai n st th e in d iv idu al d ef

en d an ts u n d er2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 fo r v io lati n g O ’B rien ’s co n stitu ti o n al rig h ts u n d erB iv en s, an y p o ss ib le co n stru ctio n o f O ’B rien ’s com pl ai ntt o encom pass a B i vens cl ai m w as al so du e t o b e di sm i ss ed un der F e d. R . C i v. P 12( b) ( 1) be c aus e O ’ B r i e n ha d note xhaus t e d hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e d ie s w ith r e s p e c t to th a t c la im . O ’ B r i e n r e s ponde d t o the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on by s t a t i ng tha the di d not di s put e tha thi s F T C A c om pl a i ntw a s f i l e d pr e m a tur e l y , buta r gue d tha the ha d no ac ce ss t o the rul es re gardi ng the fi l i ng of such cl ai m s. O ’ B ri en further argued that6

h e m a d e ag o o d - f

a ith a tte m p t to e x h au s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s , w h ic h s h o u ld p r e v e n t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f r o m d is m is s in g f

o rla c ko f

s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n . F in a lly , O ’B r ie n a r g u e d th a t h e w a s d e n ie d a c c e s s to p r o p e rle g a l m a te r ia ls d e s p ite r e q u e s ts . N o m e n tio n w a s m a d e o f a n yB iv e n s c la im o rth e f a c t th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts a d d r e s s e d th e is s u e in its m o tio n to d is m is s . T he de f e nda nt s r e pl i e d t o O ’ B r i e n’ s a r gum e nt , tha tthe e xhaus t i on re qu i re m ent s be w ai ved, ar gu i ng thatthe exhaust i on re qu i re m ent s w er e procedural a nd non- w a i ve abl e , e ve n f orapr o s e l i t i ga nta nd, i n a nye ve nt , i tw a s e vi de ntf r om O ’ B ri en’ s c om pl ai ntthathe had acce ss t o the F T C A because i tw as expl i ci t l y c i t ed a s hi s c aus e of

a c t i on. I tf

urthe rnot e d tha tO ’ B r i e n ha d f a i l e d t o i nc l ude a ny r e que s t s f

orm a t e r i a l s tha tw e r e de ni e d t o hi m a nd tha tO ’ B r i e n ha d f a i l e d t o a l l e ge th a th e d i d n o th a v e a c c e s s t o l e g a l r e s o u r c e s d u r i n g th e t i me i n w h i c h h i s FTCA c om pl a i nts houl d ha ve be e n f i l e d. O n O c t obe r21, 2003, O ’ B r i e n f i l e d am ot i on t o a m e nd hi s c om pl a i nt pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C i v. P . 15( a ) i n or de rt o s ubs t i tut e M oni c aW e t z e l , the w a r de n of th e F DC i n Mi a m i f

o rth e m a j o r i tyo f O’ B r i e n ’ s i n c a r c e r a t i o n , f o r“ J o h n Do e . ” He th en filed a r es p o n se to th e d ef en d an ts’ rep ly b rief

, arg u in g th at (1 ) th e F T C A ’s exhaust i on re qu i re m ent s di d n otaddres s an “ att em pt ” a texhaust i ng re m edi es w here re qu es tform s w er e f i l ed and a pl ai nt i ff

w as un abl e t o o bt ai n the prop erO’B rien re fers to the Fre edom of Information Act (“F OIA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552. 2 7 form s; (2) he di d n othave an urgent nee d for a l egal l i brary or l egal m at er i al s a ft er he had fi l ed hi s “ t ort ” c l ai m on Jul y 16, 20 02 ; (3) he had no w ayof kn ow i ng that h e c o u ld r e f

ile h is c la im b e c au s e h e d id n o t h a v e le g a l m a te r ia ls a v a ilab le to h im an d , w h i l e h e co n ced ed th ath e o v erl o o k ed th e i n cl u si o n o f h i s sp eci fi c req u est s, the m at er i al s he r equest ed w er e s t atut es , 28 U . S . C . §§ 24 01 (b) and 26 75 (a ), “ w hi ch w oul d ha ve a s s i s t e d pl a i nt i f f on the f i l i ng pr oc e dur e s f

orhi s T ortC om pl a i nt ; ” a nd (4) the go vernm ent ’ s f

ai l ure t o o bj ec tt o the evi dence O ’ B ri en pres ent ed w ai ved a n yr ig h t to d o s o , m a k in g s u m m a ryju d g m e n t in O ’B r ie n ’s f a v o rap p r o p r ia te . O ’ B r i e n a l s o f

i l e d am ot i on t o s uppl e m e nthi s r e s pons e t o the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s , e s s e nt i a l l yr e s t a t i ng hi s a r gum e nt s a nd c i t i ng T hom a s v. W oodl um , 337 F . 3d 720 ( 6th C i r . 2003) t o s upporthi s “ a tt e m pt ” a r gum e ntr e ga r di ng e xhaus t i on re qu i re m ent s. N o m ent i on of B i vens, 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3, or any other pot ent i al const i tut i on al depri vat i on w as m ade. O ’ B r i e n f

i l e d tw o m or e m ot i ons t o s uppl e m e nthi s r e s pons e t o the defe nd ant s’ m ot i on t o d i sm i ss , fi rs tar gu i ng thatthe B O P ’ s r egi on al coun se l ob struct ed the evi dence and vi ol at ed the “ P ri vacyA ct , ” and sec on d, ar gu i ng that 2 the go vernm ent ’ s r ea di ng of T ho m as w as fl aw ed and the i ss ue w as w hether an

“ a tt e m pt ” t o f

ol l ow pr i s on pr oc e dur e s w a s s uf f i c i e ntt o e xhaus thi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve8

r e m e d ie s , w h ic h O ’B r ie n ar g u e d w a s e n o u g h . T h e g o v e rn m e n t r e s p o n d e d o n lyto O ’B r ie n ’s F O I A c la im s , a r g u in g th a t ( 1 ) O ’B r ie n f a ile d to e x h au s t h is a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s a nd ( 2) the de f e nda nt s w e r e othe rw i s e e xe m ptf r om O ’B r ie n ’s r e q u e s t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt g r a n te d O ’B r ie n ’s m o tio n s to s u p p le m e n t, f in d in g th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts h a d n o t o b

je c te d to th e a d d itio n a l a r g u m e n ts . O ’ B r i e n’ s F O I A c l a i m s , how e ve r , w e r e de ni e d. O n A pr i l 13, 2004, O ’ B r i e n s ubm i tt e d abr i e f a r gui ng tha the ha d r e c e i ve d a r e s pons e f

r om the B O P de ny i ng hi s t ortc l a i m a nd, the r e f or e , the pr e m a tur e ne s s of hi s F T C A c om pl a i nts houl d be de e m e d c ur e d. I ti s not e d tha t , a tno poi nti n a nyof O ’ B r i e n’ s r e s pons e s , r e pl i e s , s uppl e m e nt a l f i l i ngs , orbr i e f

s , i s the r e am e nt i on of B i vens, 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3, the E i gh th A m endm ent , or any other depri vat i on of a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. F i n al l y, o n S ep t em b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 , th e d i stri ctco u rtg ran t ed th e d efen d an t s’ m o ti o n to d ism iss. It fo u n d th at itw as w ith o u t j u risd icti o n to co n sid erO ’B rien ’s F T C A cl ai m because he had fai l ed t o exh austhi s a dm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es before f ilin g h is c o m p la in t. T h e c o u rt s p e c if ic a llyr e je c te d O ’B r ie n ’s a r g u m e n t th a t h is cl ai m be al l ow ed t o p roce ed because no subst ant i al prog re ss had t aken pl ac e bef ore hi s a dm i ni stra t i ve cl ai m w as deni ed grant ed and, furtherm ore, i tfoun d thateven th o u g h O ’B r ie n w a s p r o s e , th e p r o c e d u r a l r e q u ir e m e n ts o f th e F T C A ap p lie d to9

h i m wi th o u tl e n i e n c y . T h e d i s tr i c tc o u rtf o u n d th a tO’ B r i e n ’ s c l a i m th a tth e B OP de l a y e d hi s a tt e m ptt o c om pl yw i th a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e dur e s w a s i rr e l e va nt b e c au s e O ’B r ie n h a d f

ile d a n a d m in is tr a tiv e c la im w ith th e B O P , th e n im p r o p e r ly fi l ed a c i vi l com pl ai ntbefore the adm i ni stra t i ve cl ai m had b ee n d eni ed, and fai l ed t o fi l e an F T C A cl ai m w i thi n si x m on ths af t erO ’ B ri en’ s a dm i ni stra t i ve gri evance had b ee n d eni ed. F i nal l y, the courtdecl i ned t o rea ch the defendant s’ ar gu m entthat O ’B r ie n ’s B iv e n s c la im , if h e h a d e v e n m a d e o n e , b e d is m is s e d f o rf a ilin g to exhaustadm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es because the courtfoun d that“ the C om pl ai ntdo es nots t a t e aB i ve ns c l a i m a nd . . . i n hi s R e s pons e . . . P l a i nt i f f di d nota s s e rttha the in te n d e d to r a is e s u c h ac la im .” A ll o th e rp e n d in g m o tio n s w e r e d e n ie d a s m o o t. O n appe a l , O ’ B r i e n f

i r s ta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d byf i ndi ng tha the ha d f a i l e d t o s t a t e ac l a i m unde rB i ve ns . H e a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourt , by f a ilin g to f

in d th a t h is c la im w a s ac o n s titu tio n a l c la im u n d e rB iv e n s , f a ile d to r e a c h th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to d is m is s , a n d in s o d o in g , f a ile d to a c c e p t a s tru e a ll the fa ctual al l egat i on s i n h i s c om pl ai nt , w hi ch he argues r ai se d a const i tut i on al cl ai m un der the E i gh th A m endm entand d el i bera t e i nd i ff er ence st andards. O ’ B ri en a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtw a s obl i ga t e d t o l i be r a l l yc ons true hi s c l a i m , a nd fa i l ed t o p roperl y app l y the rul es for det erm i ni ng w hether acause of a ct i on un der B i ve ns ha d be e n m a de . H e f urthe ra r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourts houl d ha veThe c losest analogy to the district court’s findingthat O’B rien did not intend to raise a 3 Bivens claim might bea findingthat O’B rien failed to state a c laim upon which re lief could be grante d, war

rantingdismiss al under

Fe d.R.Civ.P . 12(b)( 6). That f inding would bereviewed de no vo . Se e , e .g ., Simmon s v . So nyika , 3 94F .3 d 1 33 5, 13 38 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 4) . H ow ever, thi s is not a ca se where thedistrict court found that the plaintiff failed to state a claim either

factually or leg ally, but rather

found that this plaintiff never intended to raise a c laim in the first instance, meaningit did not reach a ny merit-base d decision re g ardingwhether the claim should be dismiss ed bec ause it found the c laim did not ex ist in the first plac e. 10 p e rmi tt e d h i m t o a me n d h i s c l a i m. T he U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rthas hel d thatfe dera l offi ci al s m aybe sued in th e irin d iv id u a l c ap a c itie s f o rv io la tio n s o f

ap e r s o n ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . B i ve ns v. S i x U nknow n N a m e d A ge nt s , 403 U . S . 388, 397, 91 S . C t . 1999, 2005, 29 L . E d. 2d 61 9 (19 71 ). B ec ause cl ai m s und er42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 and B i vens ar e s i m i l a r , c ourt s ge ne r a l l yappl y§ 1983 l a w t o B i ve ns c a s e s . A be l l av. R ubi no, 63 F . 3d 10 63 , 10 65 (11th C i r. 19 95 ). T hu s, un der B i vens, “ a pl ai nt i ff m ustshow that h e o rs h e w a s d e p r iv e d o f af e d e r a l r ig h t b yap e r s o n a c tin g u n d e rc o lo ro f [ f e d e r a l] l aw . ” G ri ff

i n v . C i ty of O pa-L ocka, 26 1 F . 3d 12 95 , 13 03 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). W e w i l l a s s um e tha tr e vi e w of the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s c onc l us i ons r e ga r di ng w hether apl ai nt i ff

i nt ends t o rai se a B i vens cl ai m i s r evi ew ed de no vo , as even un der ade no vo re vi ew , the re cord show s thatO ’ B ri en, despi t e havi ng an op po rtun i ty t o d o so, never att em pt ed or i nt ended t o i nv ok e B i vens and, i n fac t , has r a is e d B iv e n s f

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l. 3 O ’ B r i e n’ s c om pl a i nts oughtr e dr e s s f or“ a c tua l pa i n a nd s uf

f e r i ng a nd11

e m ot i ona l di s tr e s s , i nj ur i e s s us t a i ne d a s adi r e c tr e s ul tof the a c t i ons , i na c t i ons , a nd o m is s io n s o f

th e n a m e d D e f

e n d a n ts a n d o f

th e ire m p lo y e e s , a g e n ts , s u b o r d in a te s ,” pu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . §§ 13 46 (b), 26 71 etse q. (F T C A ). O ’ B ri en spec i fi ca l l y c i t ed t o th e j u r i s d i c t i o n , v e n u e , a n d s t a tu t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s r e q u i r e m e n t s o f th e F T C A. At n o p o i n td o es th e co m p l ai n tm en t i o n 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 (p ro t ect i n g ag ai n st de pr i va t i on of

c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s bygove rnm e nta ge nt s a c t i ng unde rc ol orof s t a t e l a w ) , B i ve ns ( e xt e ndi ng § 1983 pr ot e c t i on t o i ndi vi dua l s a c t i ng unde rc ol orof f e de r a l l a w ) , ore i the r28 U . S . C . §§ 1331 or1343 ( f e de r a l que s t i on j ur i s di c t i on or ci vi l ri gh t s j uri sdi ct i on , i ncl ud i ng const i tut i on al ri gh t s) . A s the de f

e nda nt s not e d i n the i rm ot i on t o di s m i s s , O ’ B r i e n’ s c om pl a i nt doe s a s s e rttha t , w hi l e i nc a r c e r a t e d a tthe F D C i n M i a m i , he w a s pr ot e c t e d bythe E ig h th A m e n d m e n t, b u t th e c o m p la in t d o e s n o t a lle g e th a t O ’B r ie n ’s E ig h th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d. M or e ove r , w hi l e O ’ B r i e n m e nt i ons tha tthe defe nd ant s w er e “ del i bera t el y i nd i ff er ent ” t o h i s m edi ca l needs, the re l i ef O ’ B ri en soug htw as for, i nt eral i a, vi cari ou s l i abi l i ty, agency , and n egl i gence, al l of w hi ch h e c la im s w o u ld b e g o v e rn e d b yF lo r id ala w u n d e rth e F T C A . T h e d e f e n d a n ts , in the i rm ot i on t o di s m i s s , ga ve O ’ B r i e n the be ne f i tof the doubtand r a i s e d the p o s s ib ilityth a t O ’B r ie n m ig h t h a v e in te n d e d aB iv e n s c la im . I t n o te d th a t, e v e n if th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w e r e to g iv e s u c h ac o n s tru c tio n to O ’B r ie n ’s c o m p la in t, w h ic h it12

ne e d notdo gi ve n tha tthe c om pl a i ntdi d notf a c i a l l ys e e k r e l i e f

f oravi ol a t i on of co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h t s, th e cl ai m sh o u l d b e d i sm i ssed fo r fai l u re t o ex h au st ad m i n i strat i v e rem ed i es. In hi s m ul t i pl e r es po nses t o the defendant s’ m ot i on , O ’ B ri en never once r a is e d B iv e n s , m e n tio n e d a n ya lle g e d c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n , f ile d am o tio n to am en d h is co m p lain t t o in clu d e s u ch a c laim , o r e v en ad d re ss ed th e g o v ern m en t’ s a r gum e nttha the ha d f

a i l e d t o e xhaus thi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s r e ga r di ng a B i ve ns c l a i m . F urthe rm or e , O ’ B r i e n kne w how t o a m e nd hi s c om pl a i ntpur s ua nt t o F e d. R . C i v. P . 15( a ) , a s he f i l e d am ot i on t o do s o s e e ki ng t o a m e nd one of the d e f e n d a n ts . T h e f a c t r e m a in s th a t th r o u g h o u t h is r e s p o n s e s a n d m o tio n s to a m e nd/ s uppl e m e ntthos e r e s pons e s , O ’ B r i e n onl ya r gue s the F T C A , a nd f orthe fi rs tt i m e on app ea l ar gu es thathe i nt ended t o rai se a B i vens cl ai m . “ T hi s C ou rt ha s r e pe a t e dl yhe l d tha ta n i s s ue notr a i s e d i n the di s tr i c tc ourta nd r a i s e d f orthe fi rstt i m e i n an ap p eal w i l l n o tb e co n si d ered . ” A ccess N o w , In c. v . S o u th w est A ir lin e s C o ., 3 8 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , w h ile O ’B r ie n is p r o s e a n d e n title d to alib e r a l c o n s tru c tio n o f h is c o m p la in t, h e h a d m u ltip le op po rtun i t i es t o res po nd t o the defendant s’ as se rt i on thatO ’ B ri en di d n otra i se a B i vens cl ai m , bu ti f he di d, i tshou l d b e di sm i ss ed for l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att er13

ju r is d ic tio n . O ’B r ie n c h o s e n o t to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t o ra r g u e B iv e n s d e s p ite b e in g o n n o tic e ( a s h e d id r e s p o n d to th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to d is m is s ) th a t a B i v e n s c l a i m wa s n o to u to f th e q u e s t i o n i f

h e i n t e n d e d t o r a i s e i t . Ho we v e r , we c onc l ude tha tO ’ B r i e n’ s B i ve ns c l a i m i s r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l a nd, the r e f or e , de c l i ne t o c ons i de ri t . A c c e s s N ow , 385 F . 3d a t1331. O ’ B ri en nextar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y f i nd i ng thathe had fai l ed t o ex h au sth i s ad m i n i strat i v e rem ed i es, co n t en d i n g th ath i s “ att em p t ” t o d o so s houl d ha ve be e n s a t i s f

a c t ory . W e r e vi e w the di s m i s s a l of a n a c t i on f

orl a c k of s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on de novo. O c hr a n v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 117 F . 3d 495, 499 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . “ T he F e de r a l T ortC l a i m s A c t( F T C A ) pr ovi de s tha ta n ‘ a c t i on sh al l n o tb e i n st i tu t ed u p o n a cl ai m ag ai n stth e U n i t ed S t at es fo r m o n ey d am ag es’ unl e s s the c l a i m a ntha s f i r s te xhaus t e d hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s . ” M c N e i l v. U n ite d S ta te s , 5 0 8 U .S . 1 0 6 , 1 0 7 , 1 1 3 S .C t. 1 9 8 0 , 1 9 8 1 , 1 2 4 L .E d .2 d 1 2 1 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C . § 2 6 7 5 ( a ) o f th e F T C A: A n act i on shal l no tbe i nst i tut ed up on a c l ai m agai nstthe U ni t ed S t at es for m on eydam ages for i nj ury or l oss of property or per sonal i nj uryorde a th c aus e d bythe ne gl i ge ntorw r ongf ul a c torom i s s i on of a n ye m p lo y e e o f

th e G o v e rn m e n t w h ile a c tin g w ith in th e s c o p e o f h is offi ce or em pl oym ent , un l es s the cl ai m antshal l have fi rs tpres ent ed the c l a i m t o the appr opr i a t e F e de r a l a ge nc ya nd hi s c l a i m s ha l l ha ve be e n f i na l l yde ni e d bythe a ge nc yi n w r i t i ng a nd s e ntbyc e rt i f i e d or re gi st er ed m ai l . T he fa i l ure of an agency t o m ake f i nal di sposi t i on of a c l a i m w i thi n s i x m onths a f t e ri ti s f i l e d s ha l l , a tthe opt i on of the c l a i m a nta nyt i m e the r e a f t e r , be de e m e d af

i na l de ni a l of

the c l a i m f

or14

purpos e s of

thi s s e c t i on. 28 U . S . C . § 2 67 5(a) . In M cN ei l , the U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rtdeci ded w hether an act i on m ay b e m a in ta in e d u n d e rth e F T C A w h e n th e c la im a n t f a ile d to e x h au s t h is ad m i n i strat i v e rem ed i es p ri o r t o fi l i n g su i t , b u td i d so b efo re sub st an t i al p ro g ress w as m ade i n the l i t i gat i on . M cN ei l , 50 8 U . S . at10 7, 11 3 S . C t . at19 81 . In M c N e i l , the pl a i nt i f

f f i l e d ac om pl a i nton M a r c h 6, 1989, i n di s tr i c tc ourtunde rthe F T C A a n d f

o u rm o n th s la te rf

ile d a n a d m in is tr a tiv e c la im , w h ic h w a s s u b s e q u e n tly de ni e d on J ul y21, 1989. I d. a t107- 08, 113 S . C t . a t1981- 82. T he gove rnm e nt m o v e d to d is m is s th e c o m p la in t, a r g u in g th a t th e c o m p la in t w a s n o t f ile d u n til A pri l 15 , 19 90 , w hen the pl ai nt i ff pai d the fi l i ng fe es , w hi l e the pl ai nt i ff ar gu ed tha tthe c om pl a i ntw a s f i l e d on M a r c h 6, 1989, a nd, the r e f or e , t i m e l y . I d. a t108- 09 , 11 3 S . C t . at19 82 . T he C ou rtre j ec t ed the pl ai nt i ff’ s argum entthat , so l on g as no subst ant i al prog re ss has bee n m ade i n the l i t i gat i on by the t i m e the cl ai m anthas e x h au s te d h is a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s , th e f e d e r a l a g e n c yw ill h a v e h a d af a ir o p p o rtu n ityto in v e s tig a te a n d /o rs e ttle th e c la im . I d . a t 1 1 1 - 1 2 , 1 1 3 S .C t a t 1 9 8 3 . T h u s , th e S u p r e m e C o u rt in M c N e il h e ld th a t th e “F T C A b a r s c la im a n ts f r om br i ngi ng s ui ti n f

e de r a l c ourtunt i l the yha ve e xhaus t e d the i ra dm i ni s tr a t i ve re m edi es , ” and because the pl ai nt i ff there “ fa i l ed t o h ee d thatcl ear s t atut ory15

com m and, the D i stri ctC ou rtprop er l y di sm i ss ed hi s s ui t . ” I d. at11 3, 11 3 S . C t . at 1 9 8 4 . T h e C o u rtfu rth er n o t ed th at , th e factth atth e p l ai n t i ff i n M cN ei l w as p ro se d id n o t e x c u s e m is ta k e s in f o llo w in g p r o c e d u r a l ru le s in o r d in a ryc iv il litig a tio n . I d ., 1 1 3 S .C t a t 1 9 8 4 . H er e, l i ke i n M cN ei l , O ’ B ri en prem aturel y f i l ed hi s c i vi l com pl ai ntun der the F T C A and l i kew i se “ fa i l ed t o h ee d thatcl ear s t atut ory c om m and” requi ri ng that h is a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s b e e x h au s te d b e f o r e b r in g in g s u it. M o r e o v e r , w h ile M c N e il n o te d th a t p r o s e litig a n ts a r e e n title d to h a v e th e irp le a d in g s lib e r a lly construed, procedural rul es such as exhaust i ng adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es before f i l i ng s ui tw e r e s pe c i f

i c a l l ye xc l ude d f

r om tha trul e . S e e M c N e i l , 508 U . S . a t113, 1 1 3 S .C t. a t 1 9 8 4 . F in a lly , a n ya r g u m e n t O ’B r ie n m a k e s r e g a r d in g h is in ab ilityto p r o p e r lyf

ile a n a d m in is tr a tiv e c la im is m e r itle s s g iv e n th a t h e a d e q u a te ly p resen t ed h i s t o rtcl ai m t o th e B O P , w h i ch d en i ed th e cl ai m . A cco rd i n g l y, O ’ B ri en’ s c om pl ai ntw as fi l ed prem aturel y, before adm i ni stra t i ve proceedi ng s had concl ud ed, and w as no tre fi l ed w i thi n si x m on ths af t erhi s a dm i ni stra t i ve cl ai m had been deni ed. T here fore , w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed O ’ B r i e n’ s F T C A c om pl a i ntf orl a c k of

s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on. L as t l y, O ’ B ri en ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o add re ss and revi ew w he the rde f

e nda ntW e t z e l w a s pr ope r l ys e rve d. H e r e , be c aus e w e ha ve a l r e a dy16

de t e rm i ne d tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rrbyf i ndi ng tha tO ’ B r i e n di d notr a i s e or i n t e n d t o r a i s e aBi v e n s c l a i m a n d d i d n o te rrb yd i s mi s s i n g O ’ Br i e n ’ s FTCA c om pl a i ntf

orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on, a nyunr e s ol ve d i s s ue s r e l a t i ng t o s e rvi c e of p ro cess o n M o n i ca W et zel , fo rm er w ard en o f th e F D C i n M i am i , are m o o tb ecau se the di s tr i c tc ourtdoe s notha ve j ur i s di c t i on ove ra nyof O ’ B r i e n’ s c l a i m s , i nc l udi ng th o s e a g a in s t W e tz e l. B as ed o n th e f

o re g o in g , th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t errb y d ism issin g O ’B rien ’s F T C A c om pl a i nt , f

i ndi ng tha tO ’ B r i e n di d notr a i s e ori nt e nd t o r a i s e aB i ve ns c la im , o rd e n y in g a s m o o t th e p r o p r ie tyo f s e rv ic e o f

p r o c e s s o n d e f

e n d a n t W e tz e l. W e , th e r e f

o r e , a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.