Clarification of Jurisdictional Boundaries: Diversity Tort Claims vs FTCA Liability for Federal Prison Contractors

Introduction

This commentary examines the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Felipe Ignacio Rivadeneira v. D. Ray James Correctional Facility, No. 23-12736 (11th Cir. Jan. 13, 2025), which addressed whether a pro se litigant’s state-law negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims, filed under diversity jurisdiction, could be sua sponte recast as claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The plaintiff, a federal inmate at a privately operated federal prison, alleged multiple torts arising from medical care and treatment assignments in violation of his work restrictions. The district court construed all state-law claims as FTCA actions, dismissed several claims sua sponte, and granted summary judgment for defendants on the basis that federal contractors and their employees fall outside FTCA liability. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed some dismissals and grants of summary judgment—where independent legal-entity and procedural sanctions grounds applied—but reversed the FTCA-based dismissals of claims against certain medical defendants and the prison contractor, remanding for further proceedings on the properly pleaded state-law causes of action.

Summary of the Judgment

In a per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held:

Affirmed the dismissal of claims against non-medical defendants (Oliver, Green, Jimenez) for failure to state a claim under Georgia negligence law; and against Dr. Maziarz for failure to comply with a court order to respond to a motion to dismiss.
Affirmed summary judgment for the D. Ray James Correctional Facility itself and the Chronic Care Clinics program because they are not suable entities under Georgia law (not corporations or recognized quasi-artificial persons).
Reversed the district court’s dismissal of the state-law claims against Dr. Rick Thomas and the summary judgment for The GEO Group, Inc., and its employees (Johns and McCoy), because the district court plainly erred in construing properly pleaded diversity claims as FTCA claims and thus applied an inapplicable statutory bar.
Remanded for further proceedings on the state-law negligence and IIED claims against Dr. Thomas, The GEO Group, Johns, and McCoy under Georgia law and diversity jurisdiction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) – Recognized that private prison contractors are not “federal agencies” under the FTCA and that FTCA cannot be used to impose respondeat superior liability on federal contractors.
Zelaya v. United States, 781 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2015) – Reinforced that FTCA claims must be predicated on violations of state law by federal employees, and the plaintiff must show state‐law liability would attach to a private person in like circumstances.
Shivers v. United States, 1 F.4th 924 (11th Cir. 2021) – Clarified that FTCA does not encompass constitutional claims or permit suits against non-federal entities.
Farley v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999) – Articulated the plain-error standard applied when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2005) – Established the abuse-of-discretion standard for dismissals under Rule 41(b) or a court’s inherent authority.
Campbell and Sapuppo – Confirmed that issues not properly raised in the initial appellate brief are deemed forfeited or abandoned.

Legal Reasoning

The central legal error identified by the Eleventh Circuit was the district court’s sua sponte reclassification of Rivadeneira’s complaint. The plaintiff expressly invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and pleaded state-law negligence and IIED causes of action under Georgia law. He did not allege FTCA jurisdiction, nor did he identify any defendant as a federal agency or employee. The district court nevertheless treated all claims as FTCA actions and applied the statutory bar (28 U.S.C. § 2671) precluding suits against federal contractors and their employees.

The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that a pro se litigant’s clear invocation of diversity jurisdiction must be honored, and a court may not override the jurisdictional choice plaintiff has made absent a proper motion or objection. Because FTCA liability is limited to federal agencies and employees—and Congress expressly excluded contractors—recharacterizing non-FTCA claims as FTCA claims effectively deprived the plaintiff of his state-law remedy without proper notice or amendment. The appellate court therefore reversed the FTCA-based dismissals and summary judgments as to those claims.

Impact

This decision reinforces two fundamental principles:

Court must respect the jurisdictional basis expressly pleaded by a pro se plaintiff. Even in screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court may not reclassify claims into a statutory framework never invoked by the complainant.
FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not extend to independent contractors or private entities operating under federal contract. State-law tort claims against such contractors must proceed, if at all, under state law and diversity jurisdiction or another appropriate basis.

Future litigants and courts in the Eleventh Circuit will look to this opinion to ensure that pro se complaints invoking diversity are litigated under the plaintiff’s chosen rubric, and that FTCA exceptions do not swallow otherwise valid state-law remedies without proper procedural steps.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): A statute creating a limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity, allowing suits for injury “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government” (28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1)). It does not reach independent contractors.
Diversity Jurisdiction: Federal subject‐matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and all parties are citizens of different states.
Independent Contractor Exclusion: The FTCA excludes liability for acts of “any contractor with the United States” (28 U.S.C. § 2671), preventing suits against private entities performing government functions.
Report & Recommendation (R&R): A magistrate judge’s draft analysis, which parties may object to before the district court issues a final ruling.
Plain Error Review: An appellate standard applied when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report, requiring (1) error, (2) that is obvious, (3) affecting substantial rights, and (4) undermining judicial integrity.
Rule 41(b) Dismissal: A sanction for failure to comply with court orders, which may lead to involuntary dismissal of claims.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Rivadeneira v. D. Ray James Correctional Facility clarifies that federal courts must honor a pro se plaintiff’s invocation of diversity jurisdiction and cannot recharacterize claims as FTCA actions absent a proper basis. It reaffirms the FTCA’s express limitation to federal agencies and employees, preserving state-law tort remedies against private contractors under diversity jurisdiction. This ruling will guide district courts in appropriate claim classification, ensuring access to relief where Congress intended and guarding against inadvertent deprivation of state-law causes of action.