Page 1 of 5

Case No. 5:10cv286-RH/GRJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

KNOLLY EDWARDS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv286-RH/GRJ

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS 

et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The plaintiff Knolly Edwards was an inmate at the Federal Correctional 

Institution in Marianna, Florida. In the second amended complaint, Mr. Edwards 

alleges that he was assigned to work disassembling computers, that this caused 

exposure to substantial amounts of lead and cadmium, that he was not provided 

protective equipment, and that this constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. 

Edwards also asserts that he was denied access to outside medical providers in 

order to hide the mistreatment and that he was transferred to a different institution

in retaliation for complaining.
Page 2 of 5

Case No. 5:10cv286-RH/GRJ

The second amended complaint names as defendants Federal Prison 

Industries and “Unknown Federal Officers,” identified only as the “factory 

foremen/managers.” ECF No. 18 at 2. Earlier complaints also named the Bureau 

of Prisons. Federal Prison Industries and the Bureau of Prisons are, in effect, the 

United States.

The United States has moved to dismiss or alternatively for summary 

judgment. The motion is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 30, and the objections, ECF No. 31. I have reviewed 

de novo the issues raised by the objections. The report and recommendation 

concludes that the second amended complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. 

This order accepts the report and recommendation in part.

Mr. Edwards failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his claim of 

inadequate medical care. And he has not adequately alleged facts sufficient to 

state a claim for inadequate medical care. A prisoner has no right to be treated 

outside an institution rather than within, and differences of opinion on the proper 

treatment do not alone create an actionable claim. The report and recommendation 

collects the authorities establishing these principles. The medical-care claim fails 

against all defendants.

Mr. Edwards also has failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his 

retaliatory-transfer claim. Moreover, the evidence is uncontradicted that Mr. 
Page 3 of 5

Case No. 5:10cv286-RH/GRJ

Edwards asked to be transferred; the transfer was not retaliatory. ECF No. 25-3 at 

2. The retaliatory-transfer claim fails against all defendants.

Mr. Edwards’s claim for injuries from excessive exposure to lead and 

cadmium on the job fails against the United States —that is, against Federal Prison 

Industries or the Bureau of Prisons—because the Inmate Accident Compensation 

Act provides a prisoner’s exclusive remedy against the United States for injuries 

on the job. See United States v. Demko, 385 U.S. 149, 152-54 (1966). Mr. 

Edwards has not attempted to assert an IACA claim.

That leaves for consideration only Mr. Edwards’s claim against the unknown 

individual defendants for exposing Mr. Edwards to excessive levels of lead and 

cadmium . The better view is that the IACA does not bar an inmate’s 

constitutional claim against an individual defendant under Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Smith v. 

United States, 561 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2009) (holding a Bivens action not barred 

by the IACA); Bagola v. Kindt, 131 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 1997) (same). Deliberately 

exposing an inmate to harmful substances can constitute cruel and unusual 

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Powell v. Lennon, 914 

F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that a prisoner who alleged exposure to 

asbestos in the dormitory adequately stated an Eighth Amendment claim under 

Bivens).
Page 4 of 5

Case No. 5:10cv286-RH/GRJ

The second amended complaint is not a model for alleging such a claim. 

But it is sufficient. Mr. Edwards will have to show deliberate indifference, a high 

standard. See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). To demonstrate 

deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must prove “(1) subjective knowledge of a risk 

of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than [gross] 

negligence.” Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265, 1272 (11th Cir. 2005) (alteration 

in original) (citation omitted). But it cannot be said on this record that Mr. 

Edwards will be unable to make such a showing.

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The report and recommendation, ECF No. 30, is accepted in part. 

2. The motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, ECF No. 24, is 

granted in part. 

3. All claims against the Bureau of Prisons and Federal Prison Industries

are dismissed with prejudice.

4. The medical-care claim against the individual defendants is dismissed 

with prejudice. 

5. The retaliatory-transfer claim against the individual defendants is 

dismissed with prejudice. 
Page 5 of 5

Case No. 5:10cv286-RH/GRJ

6. I do not direct the entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 54(b).

7. The exposure-to-lead-and-cadmium Bivens claim against the 

individual defendants remains pending. 

8. By March 22, 2013, the Bureau of Prisons must file a notice setting 

out the name of each factory foreperson and manager under whom Mr. Edwards 

was exposed to lead or cadmium as alleged in the second amended complaint. By 

April 5, 2013, Mr. Edwards must file a notice identifying the unknown defendants 

against whom he will proceed.

9. The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED on February 27, 2013.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge