Evangelista v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-00778
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Evangelista v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan dismissed most of prisoner Wayne Evangelista's lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Warden of FPC-Duluth, ruling that Evangelista cannot represent a class of prisoners as a non-lawyer, that his individual-capacity Eighth Amendment claims against the Warden must be dismissed, and that several other claims must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or as duplicative, while allowing only his request for injunctive or declaratory relief for Eighth Amendment violations against the Bureau of Prisons and the Warden in his official capacity to proceed.
Inmates at Federal Prison Camp Duluth, Minnesota, particularly those alleging toxic exposure or improper handling of earned-time credits and reentry placements. Pro se prisoner litigants seeking to bring class actions in federal court are directly affected by the ruling that non-attorneys cannot represent a class.
What happened
In Evangelista v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (File No. 25-CV-00778), Wayne Evangelista, an inmate at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota, filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and a proposed class of fellow prisoners. He alleged that inmates at the facility are exposed to toxins, that the Federal Bureau of Prisons mishandles earned-time credits under the First Step Act, and that it mishandles placements in residential reentry centers under the Second Chance Act. He sought a declaration that the defendants' conduct is unlawful, an injunction requiring safe housing and accurate benefit calculations, and $100,000 per prisoner per year in damages.
A federal magistrate judge reviewed the complaint and recommended dismissing most of it. The magistrate recommended dismissing the class claims because a non-lawyer cannot represent a class of other people in federal court, dismissing Eighth Amendment claims against the Warden in his personal (individual) capacity, denying a request for a preliminary injunction (an emergency court order to stop or require certain action while the case proceeds), and dismissing the claims about earned-time credits and reentry placements as duplicative of another case, as well as dismissing money-damages claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Eighth Amendment for lack of jurisdiction.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan overruled Evangelista's objections and adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations in full. The class claims and the Eighth Amendment claims against the Warden personally were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled. The claims about earned-time credits, reentry placements, and money damages were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Evangelista may be able to refile them. The request for a preliminary injunction was denied. The only claims that survive are Evangelista's personal requests for injunctive or declaratory relief based on Eighth Amendment violations against the Bureau of Prisons and the Warden in his official capacity.
The detailed version
- Evangelista v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, File No. 25-CV-00778 (JMB/SGE), United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- Jeffrey M. Bryan. **Order dated:** July 23, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Wayne Evangelista (also known as Wayne Nance Jr.) is an inmate at Federal Prison Camp Duluth (FPC-Duluth), operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBP). He filed a pro se (self-represented) Class Action Complaint on behalf of himself and all prisoners at FPC-Duluth, naming the FBP and the Warden of FPC-Duluth as defendants. His allegations fall into three categories: (1) toxic exposure at FPC-Duluth, raising Eighth Amendment 'cruel and unusual punishment' and Fifth Amendment Due Process claims; (2) improper handling of earned-time credits (ETCs) under the First Step Act (FSA) and residential reentry center (RRC) placements under the Second Chance Act (SCA); and (3) monetary damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). He sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief (safe housing, lifelong medical monitoring, accurate ETC calculations, proper RRC placement), and $100,000 per prisoner per year in compensatory damages.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R)
United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued an R&R on June 3, 2025, recommending: (1) dismissal with prejudice of class claims because a non-attorney cannot adequately represent a class; (2) dismissal with prejudice of Eighth Amendment toxic-exposure claims against the Warden in his individual capacity; (3) denial of the request for a preliminary injunction; (4) dismissal without prejudice of FSA/ETC and SCA/RRC claims as duplicative of other litigation; and (5) dismissal without prejudice of FTCA claims and Eighth Amendment money-damages claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Evangelista's Objections
Evangelista objected on three grounds. First, he argued he is an 'attorney in fact,' authorizing him to represent the class. The court rejected this, explaining that 'attorney-in-fact' means a legal agent authorized to transact business for another — not a licensed attorney authorized to practice law — and citing circuit court authority holding that pro se litigants cannot adequately represent class members. Second, he made a general, undeveloped objection to dismissal of individual-capacity Eighth Amendment claims against the Warden, invoking a Supreme Court decision he referred to only as 'Loper' without providing any analysis of how it applied. Third, he made a general objection to denial of the preliminary injunction, reiterating his request without legal argument.
Standard of Review
The court reviewed de novo (independently) the portions of the R&R to which Evangelista lodged specific objections, and reviewed unobjected-to portions and general objections for clear error only. The court found Evangelista's second and third objections were too conclusory to constitute specific objections and therefore applied the clear-error standard.
Rulings
- Class claims — DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Non-attorneys cannot represent class members in federal court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). - Eighth Amendment claims against the Warden in his individual capacity — DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Evangelista's undeveloped 'Loper' argument did not identify any specific error; no clear error found. - Warden sued in individual capacity — DISMISSED from the action. - FSA/ETC and SCA/RRC claims — DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as duplicative. - FTCA claims and Eighth Amendment money damages — DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. - Preliminary injunction request — DENIED. - Surviving claims — Evangelista's individual requests for injunctive or declaratory relief based on Eighth Amendment violations against the FBP and the Warden in his official capacity remain pending.
Note on 'Loper' reference
The opinion references Evangelista's citation to a Supreme Court case he calls 'Loper' but does not identify the full case name or explain its relevance. This likely refers to Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024), which addressed judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes, but the court declined to engage with this argument due to lack of development.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.