CAMDEN, NJ – Friday — A high-profile lawsuit brought by federal prisoners alleging the mishandling of COVID-19 protocols at Fort Dix prison has been dismissed after a New Jersey federal judge ruled the government was immune from most of the claims under federal law.
Chief U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb granted the federal government’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in Thieme et al. v. United States, a case involving serious allegations from inmates who claimed they were exposed to COVID-19 due to negligent decisions by prison leadership.
The plaintiffs, represented by pro bono attorneys from Gibbons P.C., had accused high-ranking prison officials of mismanaging transfers of inmates from FCI Elkton in Ohio to FCI Fort Dix in late 2020, allegedly leading to a rapid spread of COVID-19 among the prison population. According to their claims, there were no COVID cases at Fort Dix before the transfers, but cases surged after the new inmates arrived.
The lawsuit included claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and the Eighth Amendment, citing deliberate indifference to serious medical risk. The Court had previously allowed parts of the case to proceed but required more information on whether the FTCA’s discretionary function exception applied — a legal rule that protects the federal government from liability for certain policy decisions.
Following jurisdictional discovery and supplemental briefing, the Court concluded that all challenged conduct—except for one mask policy—was protected by the discretionary function exception. The exception shields federal agencies from lawsuits over discretionary decisions, even if those decisions result in harm.
While Judge Bumb agreed that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged serious health risks, she ruled there wasn’t enough evidence to show officials acted with deliberate indifference, a key element for bypassing the government’s immunity under the FTCA.
The Court acknowledged one Bureau of Prisons policy requiring all staff to wear masks in certain situations but found insufficient support for the claim that staff willfully ignored that rule. Without proof of reckless disregard, the judge ruled that even that policy fell short of establishing jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs had previously dropped their claims for injunctive relief, which had initially survived an earlier dismissal attempt.
The case is now closed, though plaintiffs may still consider an appeal.
