Filed Date: May 3, 2016
Closed Date: Sept. 6, 2022
Clearinghouse coding complete
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit on May 3, 2016 against the United States and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP), the medical director of the FBOP, and Gilead Sciences in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He brought claims under Bivens, challenging the delayed treatment of his chronic Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) -- and FBOP's related policies for determining DAA eligibility and priority -- as a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff further alleged that Gilead, the manufacturer of the DAA treatment he sought, unlawfully discriminated against him on the basis of his race and age in denying his HCV treatment. Plaintiff also brought claims related to alleged overcrowding. He sought injunctive relief, including DAA treatment, as well as punitive and compensatory damages. The case was assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta.
Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on June 27, 2016. The Court denied that motion on August 24, 2016, reasoning that plaintiff did not have a high likelihood of success on his claims. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on September 26, 2016. During this time, defendants filed two motions to dismiss against both of plaintiff's claims - one on behalf of the FBOP and one by Gilead, the manufacturer of the DAA treatment plaintiff requested. On March 17, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motions. The Court permitted plaintiff's HCV treatment claim seeking injunctive relief to proceed against FBOP, but dismissed his crowding claim as lacking merit, and the money damages claims related to HCV treatment on qualified immunity grounds. Additionally, the Court granted Gilead's motion to dismiss in full. The Court also appointed pro bono counsel to plaintiff for his remaining claims. 242 F.Supp.3d 31.
Thereafter, the FBOP amended its HCV treatment guidelines, after which plaintiff became eligible for and began receiving DAA treatment. Defendants filed another motion to dismiss on May 25, 2017 on the grounds that because plaintiff was receiving DAA treatment, his claim for injunctive relief was moot. At the same time, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of his dismissed claims. On March 8, 2018 the Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for injunctive relief, finding it moot. In the same opinion, however, the Court partially vacated its prior ruling dismissing the remaining claims. It reasoned that, as to the claim for money damages against the FBOP medical director in his individual capacity, the court might have misconstrued the qualified immunity analysis. In particular, it had framed the right at issue as only whether the decision to deny DAA treatment based on APRI score violated clearly violated the Eighth Amendment, rather than (properly) considering whether it was clearly established that plaintiff had a right to adequate medical care, and to be free from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Noting that the prior complaint had not properly been served, however, the court dismissed the claim without prejudice to refiling upon proper service. 299 F.Supp.3d 150.
On June 4, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the FBOP medical director. The medical director filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 24, 2018. The Court granted the director's motion on August 22, 2019, concluding that plaintiff still had not provided adequate grounds to find that denying HCV treatment constituted deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. It cited the rapidly changing medical landscape and equivocal medical guidance as undermining plaintiff's claim that he had an absolute right to treatment. 2019 WL 11320973. Plaintiff asked the Court to clarify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and on July 20, 2020 the Court clarified that the dismissal was without prejudice and noted that plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint alleged facts that plausibly established a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment sufficient to overcome qualified immunity, namely that FBOP policy prioritizing people for treatment was grounded in cost, and not medical considerations, and that the medical director had knowingly disregarded plaintiff's cirrhosis in denying treatment.
On July 20, 2020 plaintiff formally filed his second amended complaint against the medical director. The medical director again responded with a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, on September 25, 2020, which the court denied on February 8, 2021, citing the reasoning in its July 20, 2020 decision. 2021 WL 1396375. Defendant filed an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on April 8, 2021. The district court stayed the case pending appeal on April 23, 2021. On July 5, 2022, the appellate court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity. The court reasoned that because plaintiff was treated and successfully cured of HCV, his argument that he should have received treatment earlier, and thus was entitled to damages from the medical director, was insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. 38 F.4th 1145. Accordingly, on September 6, 2022, the District Court dismissed and closed the case.
Summary Authors
Elena Meth (3/21/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4498234/parties/bernier-v-allen/
ANANIA, MARK H. (District of Columbia)
Barbee, Jonathan E. (District of Columbia)
Bassett, David B. (District of Columbia)
BATON, WILLIAM C. (District of Columbia)
Adebonojo, Kenneth A. (District of Columbia)
ANANIA, MARK H. (District of Columbia)
Barbee, Jonathan E. (District of Columbia)
Bassett, David B. (District of Columbia)
BATON, WILLIAM C. (District of Columbia)
Borello, Christopher (District of Columbia)
BRADISH, KATHLEEN W. (District of Columbia)
BRANNON, LEAH O. (District of Columbia)
CARY, GEORGE S. (District of Columbia)
CRITCHLEY, JENNIFER C. (District of Columbia)
Duh, Christine E. (District of Columbia)
ESOY-MIZZO, CHERYLYN (District of Columbia)
Ferrera, Vinita (District of Columbia)
FLAHERTY, JOHN EDMUND (District of Columbia)
Gallagher, Richard W. (District of Columbia)
Howard, Theodore A. (District of Columbia)
James, Colleen Tracy (District of Columbia)
JR., ROBERT E. (District of Columbia)
Kennedy, E. Ryan (District of Columbia)
LAZERWITZ, MICHAEL (District of Columbia)
LIZZA, CHARLES MICHAEL (District of Columbia)
Manspeizer, David A. (District of Columbia)
McMurry, Scott A. (District of Columbia)
MERCADANTE, TARA LYNN (District of Columbia)
Muir, Ryann M. (District of Columbia)
OFOSU-ANTWI, ELEONORE (District of Columbia)
O'SHAUGHNESSY, WILLIAM J. (District of Columbia)
REDWINE, SYMONE J. (District of Columbia)
RODRIGUE, CARISSA L. (District of Columbia)
Saxton, Kate (District of Columbia)
SELIGMANN, READE WILLIAM (District of Columbia)
SHORT, JONATHAN M.H. (District of Columbia)
Simmerman, Frank E. (District of Columbia)
SINGH, RUKHSANAH L. (District of Columbia)
SLAVIN, ELINA (District of Columbia)
SULLIVAN, SARAH ANN (District of Columbia)
Taylor, Chad L (District of Columbia)
WALSH, LIZA M. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4498234/bernier-v-allen/
Last updated Oct. 31, 2025, 6:14 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Special Collection(s):
Hepatitis C Treatment in Jails and Prisons
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 3, 2016
Closing Date: Sept. 6, 2022
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is an individual incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Washington, D.C. with chronic Hepatitis-C Virus seeking Direct-Acting Antiviral treatment.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal Bureau of Prisons (District of Columbia), Federal
Gilead Industries (District of Columbia), Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:16-cv-00828
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 21-05083
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Medical/Mental Health Care: