Term: 2015
Docket: 15-109
Simmons v. Himmelreich
- Pro
15-109 SIMMONS V. HIMMELREICH DECISION BELOW: 766 F.3d 576 CERT. GRANTED 11/6/2015 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) judgment bar, 28 U.S.C. 2676, provides that "[t]he judgment in an action under section 1346(b) of this title," i.e., the statutory provision that grants subject matter jurisdiction to federal district courts over FTCA cases, "shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim." The question presented here is the same question on which this Court granted certiorari (but did not resolve) in Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006): Whether a final judgment in an action brought under Section 1346(b) dismissing the claim on the ground that relief is precluded by one of the FTCA's exceptions to liability, 28 U.S.C. 2680, bars a subsequent action by the claimant against the federal employees whose acts gave rise to the FTCA claim. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-4212
The Simmons v. Himmelreich case involved a federal prisoner, Walter Himmelreich, who sued the United States and prison officials after he was severely beaten by another inmate. He initially filed a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which was dismissed due to an exception in the FTCA that bars claims based on failures to perform discretionary functions. Subsequently, he filed another lawsuit against individual prison employees for violating his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court had to decide whether dismissal of his first suit barred him from filing the second one under a provision of FTCA known as "judgment bar". In 2016, it unanimously ruled in favor of Himmelreich stating that judgment bar did not apply when initial claims were dismissed based on exceptions within FTCA itself rather than on merits of those claims; thus allowing him to proceed with his second lawsuit.
In the dissenting opinion for Simmons v. Himmelreich, Justice Thomas argued that allowing a prisoner to pursue a Bivens action after his FTCA claim had been dismissed would undermine Congress's intent in enacting the judgment bar of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). He believed that this interpretation could potentially lead to duplicative litigation and inconsistent judgments, which was precisely what Congress sought to avoid by including the judgment bar in the FTCA. Furthermore, he contended that an exception should not be made just because it might result in harsh outcomes for some plaintiffs. Instead, if such changes were necessary they should come from Congress rather than through judicial interpretation.
