Jordan Watkins v. Brij Mohan, et al.

Chicago, Illinois personal injury lawyer represneted the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants on deliberate indifference law theory.



While he was in federal custody, plaintiff-appellant Jordan Watkins underwent a hernia repair operation at an outside hospital. He began experiencing severe pain and swelling in his groin. Medical staff at the correctional facility allegedly told Watkins that his pain and swelling were ordinary side effects of his surgery. The medication they gave him did not relieve his pain or swelling, and they refused to schedule a follow-up appointment with his surgical team before he was transferred to another federal facility.



Watkins brought Bivens claims alleging that medical and correctional staff had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See generally Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). He also brought a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States for negligent medical treatment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The district court dismissed all of his claims on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court thought the Supreme Court's current framework for evaluating Bivens claims should bar Watkins' Bivens claims and that he sued too late on his FTCA claim.



In Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), the Supreme Court recognized an implied damages remedy under Bivens against

federal prison staff for providing constitutionally inadequate medical care. Over the last eight years, starting with Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017), the Court has sharply curtailed the extension of Bivens to new contexts. Nevertheless, Carlson remains good law. It allows federal prisoners to sue for damages resulting from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs. Under a straightforward application of Carlson and the Supreme Court's current legal framework for evaluating Bivens claims, Watkins' constitutional claims may go forward. Also, although Watkins' suit under the FTCA is untimely, he may be able to establish the requirements for equitable tolling.



* * *



Since this nation's founding, federal courts have awarded damages against federal officers for violating the legal rights

of United States citizens and others. See James E. Pfander, Constitutional Torts and the War on Terror 3–18 (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2017); id. at 9 (in the nineteenth century, courts "came to understand that their duty was to apply the law and determine, often with the help of a jury, the legality of official action. The burden of ameliorating the financial consequences of personal liability fell to Congress ....”); see also Bivens, 403 U.S. at 395–96 (noting precedents for damages actions). The Supreme Court continued that historical practice in Bivens when it recognized a right of action for damages directly under the Constitution for violations of individual rights by federal officials.

Reversed