Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 08-05-2021

Case Style:

Matthew Staszak v. United States

Case Number: 20-3069

Judge: Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM

Court: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney:

St. Louis, MO Criminal defense Lawyer Directory


St. Louis, MO - Criminal defense lawyer represented Plaintiff - Appellant with appealing the district court’s adverse judgment in his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) charge.

Federal inmate Matthew Staszak appeals the district court’s1
adverse judgment
in his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Upon de novo
review, we affirm. See Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp., 964 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir.
2020); Montin v. Moore, 846 F.3d 289, 292 (8th Cir. 2017). We agree with the
district court that Gallardo was not a proper defendant for the FTCA claims, see
Duncan v. Dep’t of Labor, 313 F.3d 445, 447 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (United
States is proper defendant in FTCA claim); and that Staszak’s lack of physical injury
barred the FTCA claims against the United States, see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(2) (person
incarcerated while serving sentence for felony conviction may not bring civil action
against United States for mental injury suffered in custody without showing prior
physical injury).
We also agree that the Bivens claims failed. Sovereign immunity barred the
Bivens claims against the United States, and against Gallardo in her official capacity.
See Buford v. Runyon, 160 F.3d 1199, 1203 (8th Cir. 1998) (sovereign immunity bars
Bivens action against United States). As to the individual-capacity claims against
Gallardo, even assuming a Bivens remedy exists for violations of the Sixth
Amendment, Staszak had no right to counsel in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, see
Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 964 (8th Cir. 2004) (there is no Sixth Amendment
right to counsel in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings); and the due process claim was
premised on the alleged Sixth Amendment violation, see Bishop v. Tice, 622 F.2d
349, 353 (8th Cir. 1980) (to state Fifth Amendment due process claim, plaintiff must
allege deprivation of property or liberty interest).

Outcome: The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Staszak’s motions
for counsel.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case