Coleman v. Smith et al, No. 6:2019cv00200 - Document 6 (E.D. Ky. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Anthony Coleman is a federal inmate who was previously confined at the United States Penitentiary ("USP")- McCreary in Pine Knot, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney, Coleman has filed a civil rights complai nt pursuant to the doctrine announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). [R. 1 .] The Court granted Coleman's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [see R. 5 ] and now conducts an initial scre ening of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2). See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 47071 (6th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. Coleman's complaint [R. 1 ] is DISMISSED; 2. Judgment will be entered contemporaneously herewith; and3. This matter is STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 9/06/2019.(MM)cc: COR, pro se filer via US Mail

Download PDF

Coleman v. Smith et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON ANTHONY LAQUESA COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. DERRICK SMITH, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-200-GFVT MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER *** *** *** *** Anthony Coleman is a federal inmate who was previously confined at the United States Penitentiary (“USP”)-McCreary in Pine Knot, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney, Coleman has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to the doctrine announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). [R. 1.] The Court granted Coleman’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [see R. 5] and now conducts an initial screening of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2). See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 47071 (6th Cir. 2010). In his complaint, Coleman alleges that USP-McCreary Correctional Officer Derrick Smith and another unknown officer physically and sexually assaulted him during a search, thereby violating his constitutional rights. [R. 1.] Coleman seeks one hundred thousand dollars in total damages under Bivens. [Id. at 5.] While Coleman’s allegations are concerning if true, Coleman’s complaint must nevertheless be dismissed upon the Court’s preliminary screening. Coleman identified two defendants in his complaint: Correctional Officer Smith, sued in his official capacity, and USP- Dockets.Justia.com McCreary, sued in its official capacity. [Id. at 2.] As for the claim against Smith, “a Bivens claim may not be asserted against a federal officer in his official capacity.” Berger v. Pierce, 933 F.2d 393, 397 (6th Cir. 1991). While Bivens provides a mechanism for a plaintiff to recover money damages from federal officials in their individual capacities for certain claims, Coleman cannot pursue a claim against federal officials via Bivens to the extent the officials are sued in their official capacity. See, e.g., Okoro v. Scibana, 63 F. App’x 182, 184 (6th Cir. 2003). This is because a suit against a government employee in his official capacity is, in fact, a suit against the government agency that employs the individual. In this case, Coleman’s official capacity claim against Officer Smith is in effect a claim against the Bureau of Prisons, a federal agency, and Bivens does not waive the sovereign immunity enjoyed by the United States and its agencies. See, e.g., F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994). For the same reasons, Coleman’s claim against USP-McCreary as an entity is properly dismissed. USP-McCreary, a federal agency, enjoys sovereign immunity from Coleman’s claims notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s Bivens ruling. Id. Because Coleman cannot recover under Bivens against either of the named defendants, Coleman’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. Coleman’s complaint [R. 1] is DISMISSED; 2. Judgment will be entered contemporaneously herewith; and 3. This matter is STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket. 2 This the 6th day of September, 2019. 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.