United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-30294

____________

Nicholas Queen, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

United States of America; J. Lyons; S. Coggins; 

Unknown Defendants, Correctional Officer(s), 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:19-CV-1576 

______________________________

Before Jolly, Smith, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

E. Grady Jolly, Circuit Judge:

Nicholas Queen is a former federal prisoner. He sued the United 

States for assault under the Federal Tort Claims Act after prison officials

physically restrained and beat him in January 2019. The district court 

dismissed Queen’s claim, holding his injuries were de minimis and, 

therefore, not legally cognizable. Because the applicable tort law does not bar 

claims based on de minimis injuries, the district court erred. Consequently, 

we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further 

proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 24, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30294 Document: 124-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 22-30294

2

I.

On January 3, 2019, at USP Pollock, Louisiana, Nicholas Queen 

napped in his cell. He was awoken by four correctional officers who had been 

called for a supposed medical emergency when an officer believed Queen to 

be unresponsive. Queen was awoken and confirmed to the officers that he 

was alright. Unsure of Queen’s condition, one of the officers instructed 

Queen to stand. When he stood, he grabbed one of the officers’ right arms 

and said that he needed a moment to breathe.

The parties dispute what happened next. According to the 

government, Queen pushed the officer in the chest and lunged at the other 

officers.1

 The officers then restrained Queen. This is not Queen’s story, 

however. He alleges that the officers, unprovoked, hit him in the face, 

pushed his head into the wall, choked him, jumped on his back and legs, 

smashed and twisted his arms to apply restraints, pulled his pants down, and 

dragged him to the onsite medical clinic.

At the clinic, Queen complained of right shoulder pain. A nurse noted 

abrasions to the right side of Queen’s neck and his right pectoral. However, 

she observed no bruising, swelling, or other deformities. The nurse also 

noted slurred speech, nonsensical answers, and dilated pupils, and she 

concluded that Queen was “most likely under the influence of an unknown 

substance.” Over the following several months, Queen regularly complained 

of body pain that he explicitly associated with the January 2019 incident, 

including pain in his back, left shoulder, right hip, and right knee. Prison 

medical officials were unimpressed. They refused him medical braces and 

_____________________

1 Prison officials charged Queen with assault based on these allegations. The 

outcome of that disciplinary proceeding, however, is unclear as the DOJ expunged the 

incident report and destroyed the case file.

Case: 22-30294 Document: 124-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 22-30294

3

prescription pain medicine. Instead, they suggested that over-the-counter 

pain medicine would work just fine.

On February 23, 2021—after his release from prison—Queen 

obtained a diagnosis of chronic back pain and right hip pain from Dr. Max 

Romano, a medical doctor, at the Baltimore Department of Social Services. 

On the medical questionnaire form confirming Queen’s diagnosis, Dr. 

Romano checked a box that stated that this “impairment [was] severe enough 

to prevent [Queen] from working, participating in a work, training, or 

educational activity.” Dr. Romano checked other boxes stating that Queen’s 

impairment could be expected to last over 12 months.

We flash back to December 9, 2019. While still incarcerated, Queen 

had sued the United States for assault under the Federal Tort Claims Act for 

physical injuries arising from the January 3, 2019, incident.2 Queen, then pro 

se, alleged that because of the officer’s takedown he suffers constant pain in 

his lower back, right hip, right arm, shoulders, and right leg. At the summary 

judgment stage of the case, the United States moved the court to dismiss. 

The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in which he 

recommended that the case be dismissed. The magistrate judge concluded 

that Queen’s injuries were de minimis and, therefore, insufficient to support 

a FTCA assault claim against a prison officer. The district judge agreed with 

the magistrate judge’s recommendation, adopted the R&R, and dismissed 

Queen’s pro se case.

Queen, now with pro bono counsel, appeals the dismissal of his case.

II.

_____________________

2 Queen exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required by 

the FTCA.

Case: 22-30294 Document: 124-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 22-30294

4

“We review grants of summary judgment de novo, applying the same 

standard as the district court.” In re La. Crawfish Producers, 852 F.3d 456, 

462 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 477 (5th 

Cir. 2004)). Specifically, “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the 

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED.R.CIV. P. 56(a). All 

facts and reasonable inferences are construed in favor of the nonmovant, and 

the court should not weigh evidence or make credibility findings. Deville v. 

Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 163–64 (5th Cir. 2009). The resolution of a genuine 

issue of material fact “is the exclusive province of the trier of fact and may

not be decided at the summary judgment stage.” Ramirez v. Landry's Seafood 

Inn & Oyster Bar, 280 F.3d 576, 578 n.3 (5th Cir. 2002).

III.

On appeal, Queen challenges the district court’s dismissal of his 

FTCA assault claim based on the de minimis injury bar. The district court 

relied on a statutory requirement that prisoners must show a physical injury 

to support mental or emotional claims. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); 28 U.S.C. § 

1346(b)(2). It is certainly true that we have required the prisoner injury to be 

greater than de minimis when a prisoner claims constitutional violations. 

Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Queen, however, does 

not seek damages for a constitutional violation; he seeks damages for a tort 

under the Federal Tort Claims Act. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 478 (1994). 

In short, the de minimis injury test that applies to constitutional claims does 

not apply to an injury alleged under Louisiana tort law.

3

_____________________

3 The Supreme Court, albeit interpreting a separate federal statute, has recently 

cautioned lower courts against imposing significance-of-injury tests not established in 

statutory texts. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 601 U.S. ____ (2024).

Case: 22-30294 Document: 124-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/24/2024
No. 22-30294

5

In FTCA cases, we apply the law of the jurisdiction where “the act or 

omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). See In re FEMA Trailer 

Formaldehyde Prod. Liab. Litig. (Mississippi Plaintiffs), 668 F.3d 281, 287 (5th 

Cir. 2012). Here, that is Louisiana law, and Louisiana law does not impose a 

de minimis injury bar to tort claims. Sonnier v. U. S. Cas. Co., 246 La. 401, 

405, 165 So. 2d 3, 5 (1964) (“The common law doctrine of ‘de minimis non 

curat lex’ is not embodied in the corpus of the law of this state; on the 

contrary, there exist these definite, positive provisions that ‘Every act 

whatever of man that causes damage to another, obliges him by whose fault 

it happened to repair it.’”) (citation omitted). Because Queen’s FTCA 

claims do not require passing a de minimis threshold, the district court erred 

in dismissing his case.

4

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the judgment of the district 

court and REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this 

opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

_____________________

4 Furthermore, Queen submitted evidence suggesting that at least some of his 

injuries surpassed a de minimis threshold, which also would have pretermitted summary 

judgment. Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263 (5th Cir. 1991).

Case: 22-30294 Document: 124-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/24/2024