Block v. United States Government
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-00127
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 11
In Block v. United States Government, Judge Tunheim of the District of Minnesota denied incarcerated plaintiff Waylen Block's motion to reconsider the earlier dismissal of his constitutional claims, and granted the United States' motion to dismiss Block's amended Federal Tort Claims Act claims with prejudice, ending the case entirely.
Federally incarcerated individuals who seek to bring constitutional (Bivens) or Federal Tort Claims Act suits over prison conditions, restraint practices during medical transport, or related medical care issues. This ruling illustrates how the discretionary function exception can bar FTCA claims when prison officials exercise judgment over restraint decisions, and how courts narrowly apply Bivens to new factual contexts.
What happened
In Block v. United States Government, Waylen Block, a federal prisoner, sued the United States alleging that officials at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota violated his rights by placing him in overcrowded conditions during COVID-19 that led to kidney failure, and by keeping him in 'black box' wrist restraints during dialysis treatment three times a week, causing high blood pressure, nausea, vomiting, worsened vision, and other health problems. Block had previously brought claims under a constitutional remedy known as a Bivens action and under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a law that allows people to sue the federal government for certain wrongful acts by its employees. An earlier court order dismissed all defendants except the United States, dismissed the Bivens claims permanently, but gave Block a chance to refile his FTCA claims with more detail.
Block filed an amended complaint reasserting both the Bivens and FTCA claims, and also asked the court to reconsider its prior dismissal of the Bivens claims. He argued the court had misdescribed his restraints as 'wrist restraints' rather than 'black box restraints,' and that the correct description would have changed the outcome. The United States moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing the court had no authority (jurisdiction) to hear the FTCA claims because of the 'discretionary function exception' — a rule that blocks FTCA lawsuits when the government employee's conduct involved a judgment call that could be grounded in considerations of public safety and policy.
Judge Tunheim denied Block's motion to reconsider, finding he had simply repeated arguments the court had already rejected and had not shown the extraordinary circumstances needed for reconsideration. The court also found that even using the term 'black box restraints,' the Bivens claims still could not proceed because Block's situation was factually different from the specific case that allows such constitutional lawsuits. On the FTCA claims, the court found that the prison officials' decision about which restraints to use during medical escorts was a true discretionary judgment call involving public safety policy, meaning the discretionary function exception applied and stripped the court of jurisdiction. Because Block had already amended his complaint multiple times and further amendment would be futile, Judge Tunheim dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice — meaning Block cannot refile these claims — and denied his request for appointment of counsel and a medical expert as moot.
The detailed version
- Block v. United States Government, Civil No. 23-127 (JRT/JFD), United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge. **Decided:** August 4, 2025
Background and Allegations
Plaintiff Waylen Block, a federally incarcerated person proceeding without an attorney (pro se), brought suit against federal prison officials and the United States. His claims arose from his time at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota (FCI Sandstone). Block alleged he was placed in overcrowded housing during COVID-19 lockdown, contracted COVID-19, and suffered kidney failure requiring dialysis three times per week. He further alleged that during medical escorts to a dialysis center, he was kept in 'black box' restraints (a type of rigid restraint that immobilizes handcuffs) for virtually the entire duration of treatment, causing high blood pressure, headaches, nausea, vomiting, anxiety, worsening vision, and heart strain. His requests to remove the restraints were allegedly always denied.
Legal Claims
Block originally asserted: (1) claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a civil rights statute applicable to state actors, not federal); (2) Bivens claims — a judicially created remedy allowing suits against federal officers for constitutional violations, derived from Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents; and (3) claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2674, which provides a limited waiver of the United States' sovereign immunity for certain tortious acts of federal employees.
Prior Proceedings
In September 2024, the court granted defendants' first motion to dismiss. It dismissed all defendants except the United States, dismissed the § 1983 and Bivens claims with prejudice (no refiling), but dismissed the FTCA claims without prejudice and granted Block leave to amend. Block filed a motion to reconsider and an amended complaint that re-raised Bivens claims and FTCA claims sounding in Minnesota tort law (assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, medical malpractice).
Motion to Reconsider (Denied)
Block sought reconsideration of the Bivens dismissal, arguing the court erred by calling his restraints 'wrist restraints' rather than 'black box restraints.' The court noted Block had not first sought leave to file the motion to reconsider as required by Local Rule 7.1(j), but liberally construed his pro se filing as a request for such leave. The court found no compelling circumstances warranting reconsideration — Block merely restated previously rejected arguments.
The court also addressed the substance: even with the correct characterization, the Bivens claims would fail. Under Ziglar v. Abassi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017), any extension of Bivens to a new context requires special justification. The court compared Block's facts to Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) — the case Block relied upon, where a prisoner died from an acute asthma attack after an eight-hour wait with a malfunctioning respirator and contraindicated medication. Block's situation, while difficult, was factually distinct: he received anti-nausea medication, his eye concerns were acknowledged (though deprioritized), and he was not denied emergency medical care. The court declined to extend Bivens to Block's claims.
Motion to Dismiss FTCA Claims (Granted — Discretionary Function Exception)
The United States moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, invoking the discretionary function exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). This exception bars FTCA claims based on the exercise of a discretionary function or duty by a government employee, even where discretion was abused.
The court applied the two-step Herden test (8th Cir. 2013):
1. Was the conduct truly discretionary? Yes. Block himself acknowledged the officials exercised discretion, describing it as 'malicious and sadistic abuse of discretion.' The relevant BOP regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 570.44, permits (but does not specify) restraints for escorted trips based on the purpose and supervision needs. A BOP Program Statement mandates minimum restraints (handcuffs with martin chains) by security level but explicitly authorizes escorting officers to increase restraints in their discretion. Block argued that as a low-security inmate, black box restraints were not required, but the court found he misread the policy: the Program Statement sets minimums, not maximums. Escorting officers had discretion to use additional restraints.
2. Was the discretionary decision susceptible to policy analysis? Yes. As supported by the declaration of Ronald Warlick (a BOP official), the decision about restraint levels during medical escorts necessarily involves balancing an inmate's personal liberty against public safety and security — a classic policy judgment.
Because both prongs were satisfied, the discretionary function exception applied, stripping the court of subject matter jurisdiction over all FTCA claims. The court noted a dispute about administrative exhaustion but did not resolve it given the jurisdictional bar.
Bivens Claims in Amended Complaint
The court did not separately analyze the Bivens claims reasserted in the amended complaint because they had already been dismissed with prejudice and the reconsideration motion was denied.
Other Motions
Block's renewed motion for appointment of counsel and a medical expert witness was denied as moot given the dismissal of all claims.
Final Disposition
All claims dismissed with prejudice. The court found further amendment would be futile given the multiple prior amendments. Judgment to be entered for the United States.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.