Michael Antonelli v. Mark Tipton , 356 F. App'x 903 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-3123
    ___________
    Michael C. Antonelli,                      *
    *
    Appellant,                    *
    *
    v.                                   *   Appeal from the United States
    *   District Court for the
    Mark Tipton, Unit Manager, FCI-            *   Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Forrest City; Smith, Lt., FCI - Forrest    *
    City; Patterson, Drug Treatment            *   [UNPUBLISHED]
    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.                    *
    ___________
    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-