The Federalist Society

Optional Login

Have an account?

Sign in

Email

Password


Forgot password?

Proceed as Guest

Continue
Our website is currently undergoing updates, some links may no longer work and content may change. Please check back soon.

Simmons v. Himmelreich

Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

Walter Himmelreich is a federal prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut. In 2008, he was attacked by another prisoner. Himmelreich filed a complaint against multiple defendants alleging many causes of action, including a claim that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was placed in administrative detention after filing a claim under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) and a claim that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when the prison officials failed to protect him from being assaulted by another inmate. The district court dismissed his case for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated the decision and remanded the case for reconsideration of the First and Eighth Amendment claims.

On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants by holding that Himmelreich had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on the claims and that the prison officials were subject to the discretionary exception to the FTCA, which triggered the judgment bar of the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. §2676, that prohibits “any action by the same claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act of omission gave rise to the claim.” The appellate court again vacated and remanded the lower court’s judgment. It held that Himmelreich’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies should be excused because he had been intimidated and threatened by prison officials to not pursue a grievance process against them. The appellate court also found that the dismissal of Himmelreich’s claim based on discretionary exception to the FTCA as applied by the district court does not necessarily trigger a judgment bar of 28 U.S.C §2676.

Questions

  1. Does the judgment bar in 28 U.S.C. §2676 of the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) prohibit an action brought against government agents if the claim brought under the FTCA was dismissed?

Conclusions

  1. The judgment bar of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) does not apply to claims dismissed for falling under the exceptions to the FTCA. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for the unanimous Court, which held that the FTCA explicitly exempts coverage from certain categories of claims. Because the judgment bar is part of the FTCA, if the FTCA does not apply to a claim, then the judgment bar does not either. In the absence of Congressional intent to the contrary, the plain reading of the language of the statute -- that the FTCA, including the judgment bar, does not cover cases that are exempt -- should control the analysis. In this case, because Himmelreich’s first claim fell under the discretionary action exception to the FTCA, the judgment bar did not apply to his second claim.