T he H onor abl e R os emar y S. Pool er , w ho w as a mem berof thi s panel , has r emoved * hersel f from heari ng and con si derat i on of thi s appea l
. T h e re m ai ning t w o p anel m em bers, w ho agr ee on the di s pos i t i on, deci de thi s appea l pur s uantt o Se co n d C ir cui tI nt ernal O p era ti n g P roc ed u re E (b). 09- 1473
- pr A deko ya v . F e der alBure au o f P ris o ns UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y O R D E R D O N O T H A V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 20 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T , A P A R T Y M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A PP E ND I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S U M M A R Y OR D E R ” ) . A P A R T Y C I T I N G T O A S U M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A COP Y OF I T ON A N Y P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s for the Second C i r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y or k, on the 11 dayof M ay , tw o t hous and t en. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

PETE R W
. HA LL, C i r cui tJudges
. *

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- P R I N C E A
. Z
. K
. A D E K O Y A I I , A L S O K N O WN AS P RI NC E KAYOD E ADE KOYA,

P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , AM END ED v. N o. 09- 1473- pr FEDERA L BU REA U O F P RI SON S, UN I TED S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , M AR VI N D. M OR RI S ON, F OR M E R WAR DE N M E T RO P OL I T AN CO RR EC TI O N A L C EN TER , LI EU TEN A N T A RI ES, M ET ROP OLI TAN CORRE CTI ONA L CE NTE R, OF F I CE R C AM AC HO, M E T RO P OL I T AN CO RRECTI ON AL C ENTER, OFFI CER M END EZ, M ET ROP OLI TAN CORRE CTI ONA L CE NTE R,T he C l erk of C our ti s di r ect ed t o amend t he capt i on t o r ead a s s how n. ** 2

D ef endant s -Appel l ees . **

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- F O R P L A IN T IF F -A P P E L L A N T : P ri n ce A
. Z .K . A d e k o y a II , p ro se , N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k. FOR DEFEND AN TS- APPELLEE S: B r andon H. C ow ar t , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es At t o rn e y( Sa r a h S. Norma n d , As s i s t a n tUni t ed S ta te s A tto rn e y , on the br i ef ), f or Pr eetB har ar a, U n i t e d St a t e s At t o rn e yf o rth e So u th e rn Di s tr i ct of N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k. A ppeal fr om a j udgm ent of t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe Southern D i s tr i ct
o f N e w Y o rk (A lv in K . H e lle rs te in , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D th a t th e M a rc h 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is A F F IR M E D
. P rin c e A .Z .K
. A d e k o y a II a p p e a ls p ro se f ro m a n a w a rd o f

su m m a ryju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f de fe n d an ts o n this civil ac ti o n p u rsua n t t o the F ed era l T o rtC lai m s A ct (“F T C A ”), 28 U
. S. C
. §§ 1346( b) , 2671 et s eq. , and B i vens v. Si x U nknow n N amed A gent s of Feder al B ureau o f N arcot i cs, 40 3 U
. S
. 38 8 (1971 ), for dam ages sust ai ned t o p ers on al propertyas a
resu lt o f f

loo d ing in a p ri so n storero o m . S p ec ifi ca ll y , A d ek o y a c h all en g es th e d istri ct co u rt ’s
con cl usi on s that (1) s ov erei gn i m m un i tybarr ed h i s FT C A cl ai m and (2) a fai l ure t o ex hau st admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es as r equi r ed bythe Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ct( “PL R A ”) , 42 U
. S. C
. § 1997e( a) , pr ecl uded hi s B i vens cl ai m . W e ass um e t he part i es ’ fami l i ar i tyw i t h t he
u n d erly ing fa cts an d the pro ce d u ral h ist o ry o f th e cas e, w h ich w e re fe ren ce o n lyas n ec essa ry3

t o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m. Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr operonl yi f “t her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac t
a n d
. . . th e m o v a n ti s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g m e n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w . ” F e d
. R
. C i v . P
. 5 6 ( c )
. We revi ew a n a w a rd o f sum m aryj ud gm ent de no vo , con strui ng the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost f a v o r a b l e to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rt y . See M i l l erv. W ol poff & A br amson, L
. L
. P. , 321 F. 3d 29 2 , 3 0 0 ( 2d C i r . 2003)
. W e al s o r evi ew de novo l egal det erm i nat i ons s uch as the l ack of
su b ject m att er jurisdicti o n , see M ak aro v a v . U n it ed S tat es, 20 1 F
. 3 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 3 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ), and a fai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , s ee J ohns on v. R ow l ey , 569 F. 3d 40, 44 ( 2d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ). T h e F T C A e f

f e c ts a lim ited w a iv e r o f th e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t’s s o v e re ig n im m u n ity agai ns tci vi l act i ons for damages bas ed on “l os s of pr operty. . . caus ed bythe negl i gentor
w r ongful actor om i s s i on of any empl oy ee of the G overnm entw hi l e ac t i ng w i thi n the s cope
o f h is of fice o r em p loym en t. ” 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 4 6 (b)(1 ). T h e w aive r do es n o t app ly , h o w ev er, t o “[a ] nycl ai m ar i s i ng i n r es pectof .
. . the det ent i on of anygoods , m erc h an d i s e, orot her pr operty byanyoffi cerof cus t om s orexci s e oranyotherl aw enfor cementoffi cer , ” exc ept
w her e pr opertyi s “s ei zed f orthe purpos e of f

or fei tur e” a nd addi t i onal re q u ir ement s , not relev an t here , are sati sfied
. Id. § 2 6 8 0 (c). W e a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t so v e re ig n im m u n ityb a rre d A d e k o y a ’s c laim
u n d e r th e F T C A bo th b ecause A dek oy a soug ht t o recov er based on dam age to proper ty du r i ng i t s de t e nt i on by l a w e nf or c e ment of

fi c e r s , s e e A l i v. Fe d. Bur e a u o f P r i s on s , 55 2 U. S.4

214, 227- 28 ( 2008) ( cons trui ng § 2680( c) br oadl y t o coveral l l aw enfor cementoffi cer s ) , and beca us e hi s pr opertyw as nots ei zed f orthe purpos e of f

or fei tur e. W e ther efor e af fi r m t he g r a n to f s u mma r yj u d g me n to n Ad e k o y a ’ s F TCA c l a i m. T he P L R A ’ s r equi r ementthatpr i s on i nm at es exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es pr i or t o s eeki ng r el i ef i n fede r al court , s ee 42 U
. S. C
. § 1997e( a) , “appl i es t o al l i nm at e s ui t s about pr i s on l i fe, ” Por t er v. N us s l e, 534 U
. S. 516, 532 ( 2002)
. Fai l ur e t o exhaus tm aybe exc us ed onl yw her e ( 1) admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es w er e not i n fac t avai l abl e; ( 2) pr i s on offi ci al s have for fei t ed, orar e es t opped fr om r ai sing , the af fi r m at i ve def

ens e of non- exhaus t i on; or( 3) “s peci al ci r cumst ance s . . . j us t i fythe pr i s oner ’ s fai l ure to co m p l yw i th admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocedur al r equi r ement s . ” H emphi l l v. N ew Y o rk, 380 F. 3d 680, 686 ( 2d C i r . 2004) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). U p o n d e n o v o re v iew , w e a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t A d e k o y a ’s B iv e n s c laim i s b a rr e d b y h i s f

a i l u r e t o e x h a u s t h i s a d m i n i s tr a t i v e r e m e d i e s . I ti s u n d i s p u t e d th a tA d e k o ya
n e v e r f il e d a n a d m in istra tiv e g rie v a n c e re g a rd in g h is a lleg e d lyd a m a g e d p ro p e rty , an d h is fi l i ng of admi ni s tr at i ve t or tcl ai m s i s i n su ffi ci entt o s at i s fythe PL R A ’ s exhaus t i on req u ir em en t. S ee M ac ias v . Z en k , 4 9 5 F
. 3 d 3 7 , 4 4 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). N o r d o e s th e re co rd dem on strat e t hat adm i nis trat i ve rem edies w ere unav ai l able t o A dek oy a, or that defend ants ’ act i on s suppo rta fi nd i ng of est op pel or“spe ci al ci rcum st ances” suff i ci ent t o ex cuse A dekoy a’ s fai l ur e t o exhaus t . See H emphi l l v. N ew Y or k, 380 F. 3d at686. E v e n if w e w e re to c o n c lu d e , w h ich w e d o n o t, th a t o n e o f th e th re e H e m p h illA l though A dekoy a’ s br i ef i n oppo s i t i on t o s um m aryj udgm ental s o i nvokes the 1 Four th and Ei ghth A m endment s , he has al l eged no i nj urycogni zabl e underei therpr ovi s i on. See H uds on v. Pal m er , 468 U
. S. 517, 525- 26 ( 1984) ; T r amm el l v. K eane , 338 F. 3d 155, 161 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). 5 re q u ire m e n ts w a s s a tisf ied b yp riso n o f

f icia ls’ re a so n a b le r e c o m m e n d a tio n , o f f e re d p rio r to th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in A li, th a t A d e k o y a f ile a n a d m in istra tiv e to rt c laim , w e w o u ld
a f f irm th e g ra n t o f

su m m a ryju d g m e n t. A d e k o y a ’s c o m p lain t sta tes th a t d a m a g e to h is p ro p e rtyre su lted f

ro m “ th e n e g lig e n c e o f th e d e f e n d a n ts th a t k n o w in g lya n d in ten tio n a lly f a i l [ e d ] t o r e p a i r , s e c u r e , o r p r o t e c t th e s t o r a g e r o o m a g a i n s tf l o o d
. ” T o th e e x t e n tA d e k o ya al l eges negl i gence , he fa i l s t o s t at e a Fi fth A m endmentdue pr oces s cl ai m , s ee D ani el s v. W ill iam s, 4 7 4 U .S . 3 2 7 , 3 2 8 (1 9 8 6 ), an d h is b a re a lleg a tio n o f in ten tio n a l m isc o n d u c t is i ns uffi ci entt o perm i t hi m t o avoi d s um m aryj udgm ent , s ee D avi s v. N ew Y or k, 316 F. 3d 93, 1 0 0 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). 1 W e h av e c o n side red A d ek o y a’s o ther a rgu m en ts, an d w e c o n clud e tha t th eyare
w ith o u t m e rit. A c c o rd in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt