United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
VICTOR
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
While
on supervised release from prison, in a community-based
Transitional Drug Abuse treatment program, Mark Mansa
(“Plaintiff”) tested positive for
“Morphine” on a mandatory drug test. Compl., ECF
No. 1, ¶¶ 3-6, 7-8; Brief in Opp. to Mot. for Summ.
J., ECF No. 24, at 1, Ex. 5 [Alere Toxicology Serv. Inc.,
Results of Controlled Substance Test: Mark Mansa (June 12,
2014)] (“Alere Toxicology Serv., Inc. Controlled
Substances Test”); Def. Mot. to Dismiss or for Summ.
J., ECF 23, at 6.
Mr.
Mansa's positive test disqualified him from
community-based treatment services (“CTS”) and
Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”) programs and
made him “ineligible to receive a reduction in sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B).” Def. Mot. to
Dismiss or for Summ. J. at 9, 13, Ex. 1h. He was removed from
his community placement and detained in The Donald W. Wyatt
Detention Facility in Rhode Island for five and a half
months. Compl. at ¶14; Brief in Opp. to Mot. for Summ.
J. at 2.
Mr.
Mansa has now sued the United States of America
(“Defendant” or the “Government”)
under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§
1346(b), et. seq., Compl. at ¶ 1, alleging that
his positive test result fell below “Federal Bureau of
Prisons' cutoff level for an opiate marker in a urine
sample”, and that he was wrongfully imprisoned and
“suffered physical pain and discomfort and loss of
freedom as a direct and proximate consequence of his
imprisonment by defendant.” Id. at
¶¶ 10, 15.
The
Government now moves for summary judgment. Def. Mot. to
Dismiss or for Summ. J., ECF 23.[1]
For the
reasons discussed below, the Court now
GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary
judgment, ECF No. 23.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.
Factual Allegations[2]
On June
1, 2012, Mr. Mansa received a sentence of forty-six months
imprisonment for one count of possession with intent to
distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. Compl. ¶
3. On July 6, 2016, Mr. Mansa began serving his sentence.
Id. On or about May 6, 2014, when Mr. Mansa had
served twenty-two months of his sentence, he was transferred
to a Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”) in
Waterbury, Connecticut. Compl. at ¶ 4.
Later
that month and while still on supervised release from prison,
Mr. Mansa began working in New York City. Brief in Opp. to
Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 24, at 1; Ex. 1, ECF No. 24-2
[Deposition of Mark Vincent Mansa, extracted (Feb. 23, 2018)]
(“Dep. of Plaintiff”), at 37. His employer
allegedly gave him rolls and sandwiches “garnished with
poppy seeds.” Dep. of Plaintiff at 37. At first, Mr.
Mansa allegedly did not realize he was eating poppy seed
rolls. Id., Ex. 1 at 39-40.
On May
28, 2014, Mr. Mansa tested positive for
“Morphine” on a test with a screen cutoff of 300
ng/mL and a confirmation cut-off of 200 ng/mL. Alere
Toxicology Serv., Inc. Controlled Substances Test. On June 4,
2014, he called his RRC (“the Chase Center”) to
report that he had consumed a hard roll that contained poppy
seeds. Id., Ex. 3, ECF No. 24-4 [Incident Report,
Community Solutions Inc. (June 19, 2014)]. A Chase Center
counselor allegedly told Mr. Mansa not to worry because he
would need to “eat a whole case . . . or a whole
boxful” of poppy seed rolls or bagels to test positive.
Dep. of Plaintiff at 35-36. On June 12, 2014, the results of
Mr. Mansa's positive controlled substance test were
reported. Alere Toxicology Serv., Inc. Controlled Substances
Test.
A week
or two later, a staff member from the RRC called Mr. Mansa to
tell him he was being sent back to prison. Id. at
24. Mr. Mansa allegedly offered to submit to a “gas
chromatography test” at his own expense. Id.
at 25. A RRC staffer allegedly discouraged Mr. Mansa from
pursuing the additional “hair test” on his own.
Id. Nevertheless, on July 2, 2014, Mr. Mansa
submitted a hair sample for testing. Id., Ex. 4, ECF
24-5.[3] That test yielded a negative result for
opiates at a screening cut off of 200 pg/mg. Id.
Still, Mr. Mansa was incarcerated for five and a half months
for failing his CTS and RRC programs. Compl. at ¶14;
Def. Mot. to Dismiss or for Summ. J. at 9, 13, Ex. 1h; Brief
in Opp. to Mot. for Summ. J. at 2.
Mr.
Mansa claims that a positive urinalysis result for 200 ng/mL
of “Morphine” was insufficient to justify his
detention under Bureau of Prison (“BOP”)
policies. Brief in Opp. to Mot. for Summ. J. at 5; see
also, Ex. 6, ECF No. 24-7 [Residential Reentry Center,
“Statement of Work” Manual: Attachment C (Aug.
2007)]. Mr. Mansa contends that BOP rules “expressly
provided that a drug screen level less than 300 ng/ml was
not evidence of opiate ingestion.”
Id. In support of this argument, Mr. Mansa submits a
table entitled “Urinalysis Procedures”; it is
allegedly an attachment to the Residential Reentry
Center's August 2007 Statement of Work manual. Brief in
Opp. to Mot. for Summ. J. at Ex. 6. Mr. Mansa claims that BOP
procedures-as published “in the Statement at Work . . .
on any federal website . . . . [and in] the law”-set a
minimum threshold for a positive result as 300 ng/mL. Dep. of
Plaintiff at 23.
The
Government argues that Mr. Mansa knew that he could be
disciplined for a positive drug test, at any level. The
Government also argues that it made a reasonable decision,
based on BOP policy and related to legitimate health and
safety concerns, to remove Mr. Mansa from the community
following his positive toxicology screening. The parties
agree that Mr. Mansa was afforded-and prevailed on-an appeal
of his re-incarceration.
1.
Notice Evidence
The
Government alleges that Mr. Mansa knew that he could be
disciplined for a positive drug test, even if it was caused
by poppy seed consumption. Def. Mot. to Dismiss or for Summ.
J. at 6. In support of this claim, the Government submits
five exhibits.
First,
there is the “Community Based Program Agreement”,
which states:
I understand that urinalysis or other Bureau of Prisons
authorized testing to detect unauthorized drug or alcohol use
may be required as a condition of residence in a residential
re-entry center or work release program, and if required, I
agree to submit to such testing. I understand that ingestion
of poppy seed products may result in positive test results
for unauthorized drug use and is therefore prohibited.
Id. at Doc. 2a, ECF No. 23-9, U.S. Dept. of
Justice/Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Community Based Program
Agreement [BP-A0434, Rev. June 2010 (Oct. 16, 2013)]. On
October 16, 2013, Mr. Mansa signed the Community Based
Program Agreement. Id.
Second,
there is the “Adult Work Release Client
Handbook”, which states:
We expect you to remain drug and alcohol free during your
placement. You are not to consume poppy seeds, or quinine in
any form, including tonic water[.] These substances may
result in a false positive drug test. All positive drug tests
are treated as the result of the use of illegal drugs[.]
Positive results will be considered conclusive evidence of
drug or alcohol use.
Id. at Doc. 2b, ECF No. 23-9, Community Solutions,
Adult Work Release Client Handbook (Rev. May 2012) at 17. On
May 6, 2014, Mr. Mansa signed a “Handbook
Sign-off” attesting that he had received and read the
handbook, and that he understood the “behavioral
responsibilities and potential sanctions” described in
the handbook. Id. at Doc. 2c, Community Solutions,
Inc. Handbook Sign-off.
Third,
there is a signed “Client Orientation Checklist”,
which states: “Prohibition on use of drugs, alcohol,
poppy seeds, quinine water, tonic water, medicated inhalers
or any inhalers without a prescription, including Vicks and
Benedrex inhalers.” Id. at Doc. 2d, ECF No.
23-10, Community Solutions, Inc., Client Orientation
Checklist [Rev. Nov. 2007 (May 6, 2014)].
Fourth,
there is a “Conditions of Furlough” form, which
states:
It has been determined that consumption of poppy seeds may
cause a positive drug test which may result in disciplinary
action. As a condition of my participation in community
programs, I will not consume any poppy seeds or items
containing poppy seeds.
Id. at Doc. 2d, ECF No. 23-10, Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, Conditions of Furlough (March 16, 2014).
Mr.
Mansa signed that document on March 16, 2014. Id.
Fifth,
there is the “Conditions of Home Detention” form,
which states:
I will submit to urinalysis or alcohol testing as requested
by the RRC/Probation. I understand that the ingestion of
poppy seed food products may result in positive test results
for unauthorized drug use and is therefore prohibited.
Id. at Doc. 2d, ECF No. 23-10, U.S. Dept. of
Justice/Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Conditions of Home Detention
[BP-A0460, Rev. June 2010 (June 2, 2014)]. Mr. Mansa signed
that document on June 2, 2014. Id.
2.
Decision-Making Evidence
The
Government also argues that it made a reasonable decision,
based on BOP policy, to remove Mr. Mansa from the community
following his positive toxicology screening. In support of
this claim, the Government submits three groups of exhibits.
First,
there is the U.S. Dept. of Justice/Bureau of Prisons
“Incident Report” following Mr. Mansa's
positive drug test. The report characterizes the ...