ROBERTSON
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Pro se inmate James Robertson filed a civil rights action against the Federal Bureau of Prisons under Bivens and the Federal Tort Claims Act. After multiple amended complaints and motions to dismiss, Robertson filed a fourth amended complaint asserting only an FTCA claim, and the court addressed his motion to proceed with summary judgment and depositions.
The court denied Robertson's motion to move forward in summary judgment because no motion for summary judgment was pending. The court granted the extent of the motion requesting to move forward with the case, ordering parties to submit a case management report by January 15, 2024, and allowing Robertson to address depositions and discovery matters during conferral with defendant.
“There is no pending motion for summary judgment, and thus, to the extent that Robertson asks the Court to move forward in summary judgment, his motion is DENIED.”
Establishes the basis for denying the summary judgment portion of Robertson's motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Robertson, a federal inmate, initiated this civil rights action pro se by filing a complaint alleging violations of his civil rights. Robertson …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Federal Constitutional Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff James Robertson, an inmate of the federal penal system, initiated this action by filing a *pro se* complaint for the violation of his civil rights. (Doc. 1.) In an amended complaint, Robertson asserted claims under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics*, 403 U.S. 388 (1972),¹ and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). (Doc. 7.) The defendants moved to dismiss. (Doc. 40.) I granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice to Robertson filing a second amended complaint. (Doc. 58.) Robertson filed a second amended complaint asserting a *Bivens* claim only. (Doc. 62.) The defendants moved to dismiss Robertson's second amended complaint. (Doc. 74.) Robertson filed a third amended complaint, asserting only an FTCA claim. (Docs. 80, 80-1.) The Court denied the motion to dismiss as moot, dismissed the third amended complaint for failure to state a claim, and instructed Robertson to amend his FTCA claim. (Doc. 81.) Robertson filed a fourth amended complaint asserting his FTCA claim against the United States of America. (Doc. 82.) The United States of America answered the complaint. (Doc. 84.)
Currently pending is Robertson's “motion to move forward in summary judgment and/or deposition hearing.”² (Doc. 83.) Robertson's motion, (Doc. 83), is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. There is no pending motion for summary judgment, and thus, to the extent that Robertson asks the Court to move forward in summary judgment, his motion is DENIED. To the extent that Robertson requests to move forward with the case, his motion is GRANTED in that the parties are ORDERED to submit a case management report by January 15, 2024. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f); Middle District Local Rule 3.02(a). Robertson may address depositions and other discovery matters when he confers with the defendant to draft the report.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 4, 2024.
Kathryn Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971)