Michael Antonelli v. Mark Tipton, et al, No. 08-3123 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Civil rights. District court did not err in dismissing Bivens action as the facts alleged did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation or show any defendant was personally involved in the claimed violations.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-3123 ___________ Michael C. Antonelli, Appellant, v. Mark Tipton, Unit Manager, FCIForrest City; Smith, Lt., FCI - Forrest City; Patterson, Drug Treatment Specialist, FCI - Forrest City; Alison Marie Rusk-Luekefeld, Residential Drug Abuse Program Coordinator, FCI - Forrest City; Martha Depoorter, Counselor, FCI - Forrest City; Peevee, Education Secretary, FCI - Forrest City; Pritkin, Commissary Officer, FCI - Forrest City; J Carroll, Assistant Health Services Administrator, FCI - Forrest City; Rick Marquez, Captain, FCI - Forrest City; Ward, Lt., FCI - Forrest City; G Shaver, Drug Treatment Specialist, FCI Forrest City; Gaucher, Property Officer, FCI - Forrest City; Wanzer, Lt., FCI - Forrest City; Garcia; USA; P McBride, Trust Fund Supervisor, FCI - Forrest City, Appellees. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. [UNPUBLISHED] ___________ Submitted: December 1, 2009 Filed: December 16, 2009 ___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Former federal inmate Michael Antonelli brought suit for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against officials at the Federal Correctional Complex in Arkansas. He alleged that defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances, and violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights, as well as his right to due process. The district court1 dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Antonelli appeals. After careful de novo review, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we affirm. First, we conclude that Antonelli failed to state a retaliation claim because he either failed to allege which defendants were involved in or affected by his grievances, see Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1129 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim where inmate failed to allege sufficient facts from which retaliatory animus could be inferred); see also Gordon v. Hansen, 168 F.3d 1109, 1113 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (§ 1983 and Bivens suits involve same analysis), or failed to allege particular actions by specific defendants that would have 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the findings and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- chilled a person of ordinary firmness from filing grievances, see Lewis v. Jacks, 486 F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir. 2007). We also conclude that dismissal was proper as to each of the remaining Bivens claims because Antonelli either did not allege facts rising to the level of a constitutional violation, or did not allege facts indicating any defendant s personal involvement in the claimed violation. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 475-76, 483-84 (1995) (confinement in segregation does not implicate Due Process Clause unless confinement imposes atypical and significant hardship on inmate in relation to ordinary prison life); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (requirements for Eighth Amendment claim against prison official); Bandy-Bey v. Crist, 578 F.3d 763, 767 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (requirements for establishing violation of substantive due process rights); Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 2006) (for prisoner claiming denial of access to courts, notice pleading requires specific allegations as to prejudice suffered because of defendants alleged conduct); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (where plaintiff did not allege defendant was personally involved in or had direct responsibility for incidents that injured him, his claims against that defendant were not cognizable under § 1983). Finally, we conclude that Antonelli failed to state a claim under the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), (c) (FTCA s waiver of sovereign immunity shall not apply to any claim based on federal agent s exercise or performance of discretionary function, or to any claim arising in respect of detention of any goods, merchandise, or other property by law enforcement officer); § 1346(b)(2) (requiring person convicted of felony who is incarcerated while serving sentence to show physical injury before bringing civil action against United States for mental or emotional injury). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
