Ballard v. Dutton

Despite repeatedly pleading for protection, Antonio Ballard was brutally assaulted by another prisoner while incarcerated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. When Mr. Ballard sued the officer who failed to protect him, the officer sought to block Mr. Ballard from vindicating his rights by denying that he had a cause of action to challenge the officer’s misconduct. The MacArthur Justice Center took on this case to fight for the ability of pro se prisoners like Mr. Ballard to get their day in court when they seek to hold federal officers accountable for wrongdoing. 

After being repeatedly assaulted and stabbed at a previous federal corrections facility, Mr. Ballard was transferred to FCI Ray Brook. When Mr. Ballard arrived at Ray Brook, he immediately requested protective custody to prevent further assaults, but his request was denied by officials at the prison. Mr. Ballard soon encountered hostility from other prisoners, leading him to fear for his life. Mr. Ballard continued to plead for protection, this time going all the way up to the Lieutenant Warden, but was told he would never get protection, no matter how much he required it. Sadly, as he feared, Mr. Ballard was then assaulted by another prisoner.  

Mr. Ballard brought a pro se complaint raising an Eighth Amendment claim against the Lieutenant Warden for failing to protect Mr. Ballard from harm. In response, the Lieutenant Warden moved to dismiss Mr. Ballard’s claims, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents and its progeny did not provide a cause of action for Mr. Ballard’s claim. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York rejected that argument and let Mr. Ballard’s claims proceed. The Lieutenant Warden then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  

The MacArthur Justice Center (MJC) represented Mr. Ballard on appeal to the Second Circuit. We defended the district court’s decision recognizing a Bivens cause of action under a decades-old Supreme Court precedent called Farmer v. Brennan. There, as in Mr. Ballard’s case, the plaintiff sought to hold federal officials accountable for failing to protect her from violent assault by other prisoners. The plaintiff in Farmer was allowed to proceed to trial on that claim, and MJC argued that Mr. Ballard should receive the same opportunity.

UPDATE

In an unpublished order, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Court held that no Bivens cause of action is available, regardless of whether Farmer recognized or approved of a Bivens cause of action. This unfortunate decision bars Mr. Ballard from having his claims heard on the merits, and limits plaintiffs’ ability to hold federal officials accountable for conduct that is clearly unlawful under the Eighth Amendment.