Court Opinion

ID: 9963330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 00:00:49.436101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:46.115417
License: Public Domain

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

        United States Court of Appeals
             for the Fifth Circuit
                              ____________                    United States Court of Appeals
                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                               No. 22-30294
                                                                     FILED
                                                                 April 24, 2024
                              ____________
                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
Nicholas Queen,                                                      Clerk

                                                         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.
Case: 22-30294        Document: 124-1         Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/24/2024

                                   No. 22-30294

                                         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.

                                         2
Case: 22-30294         Document: 124-1          Page: 3     Date Filed: 04/24/2024

                                    No. 22-30294

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.

                                          3
Case: 22-30294         Document: 124-1           Page: 4     Date Filed: 04/24/2024

                                     No. 22-30294

        “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).

                                           4
Case: 22-30294         Document: 124-1         Page: 5     Date Filed: 04/24/2024

                                    No. 22-30294

       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).

                                          5