Background
The plaintiff, an incarcerated individual, requested his defense attorney send him forty computer discs containing his case file. The Federal Corrections Institute received the discs and required the inmate to sign a rules document to view them. Upon transfer to another facility, ten discs were missing. The plaintiff sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, initially asserting multiple claims before clarifying he was pursuing only a breach of bailment contract claim. The trial court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the complaint de novo to determine if it plausibly alleged a breach of a bailment contract. An express or implied-in-fact contract with the Government requires mutuality of intent, consideration, an unambiguous offer and acceptance, and actual authority. A bailment relationship arises when an owner delivers personalty to another for a particular purpose. The court found the plaintiff did not plausibly allege voluntary delivery because the Bureau of Prisons intercepted the delivery and dictated the terms of access. Furthermore, the court held that without voluntary delivery, there was no valid consideration. The signed rules document was deemed a unilateral agreement by the inmate and did not reflect consideration offered by the Government.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that inmates cannot establish a bailment contract with the Government regarding seized or intercepted property unless they can demonstrate voluntary delivery and the exchange of consideration.