Matthew Staszak v. United States

St. Louis, MO - Criminal defense lawyer represented Plaintiff - Appellant with appealing the district court's adverse judgment in his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) charge.

Federal inmate Matthew Staszak appeals the district court's1

adverse judgment

in his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Upon de novo

review, we affirm. See Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp., 964 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir.

2020); Montin v. Moore, 846 F.3d 289, 292 (8th Cir. 2017). We agree with the

district court that Gallardo was not a proper defendant for the FTCA claims, see

Duncan v. Dep't of Labor, 313 F.3d 445, 447 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (United

States is proper defendant in FTCA claim); and that Staszak's lack of physical injury

barred the FTCA claims against the United States, see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(2) (person

incarcerated while serving sentence for felony conviction may not bring civil action

against United States for mental injury suffered in custody without showing prior

physical injury).

We also agree that the Bivens claims failed. Sovereign immunity barred the

Bivens claims against the United States, and against Gallardo in her official capacity.

See Buford v. Runyon, 160 F.3d 1199, 1203 (8th Cir. 1998) (sovereign immunity bars

Bivens action against United States). As to the individual-capacity claims against

Gallardo, even assuming a Bivens remedy exists for violations of the Sixth

Amendment, Staszak had no right to counsel in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, see

Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 964 (8th Cir. 2004) (there is no Sixth Amendment

right to counsel in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings); and the due process claim was

premised on the alleged Sixth Amendment violation, see Bishop v. Tice, 622 F.2d

349, 353 (8th Cir. 1980) (to state Fifth Amendment due process claim, plaintiff must

allege deprivation of property or liberty interest).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Staszak’s motions

for counsel.