Carlson, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al. v. Green, Administratrix
446 U.S. 14 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A damages remedy implied directly from the Constitution against individual federal officials (a 'Bivens' action) is not precluded by the existence of a remedy against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). When a constitutional violation by a federal official causes a victim's death, federal common law provides a survival action, regardless of contrary state law.
Facts:
- Joseph Jones, Jr., an inmate at the Federal Correction Center in Terre Haute, Indiana, suffered from chronic asthma.
- Federal prison officials were allegedly aware of Jones's serious medical condition and the inadequacy of the prison's medical facilities.
- Despite this knowledge, officials kept Jones at the facility against doctors' advice.
- After Jones suffered an asthmatic attack, officials allegedly failed to provide him with competent medical care for approximately eight hours.
- During this time, they allegedly administered contraindicated drugs, used a known inoperative respirator, and delayed his transfer to an outside hospital.
- Jones died as a result of these acts and omissions.
- Jones's mother, the respondent, alleged that the officials' conduct constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, partly due to racial prejudice.
Procedural Posture:
- Marie Green, on behalf of the estate of her deceased son, filed suit against federal prison officials (petitioners) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
- The District Court held that the complaint stated a valid Eighth Amendment claim but dismissed it for failure to meet the $10,000 jurisdictional-amount requirement, reasoning that Indiana's survivorship law limited the available damages.
- Green, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that federal common law, not state law, governs the survival of the action and allows the claim to proceed, thus satisfying the jurisdictional amount.
- The federal prison officials (Carlson, et al.) then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a damages remedy implied directly from the Eighth Amendment exist against federal officials for an inmate's death, even when a remedy against the United States is also available under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), and if so, is the survival of that action governed by federal common law or state law?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes, a Bivens remedy is available and its survival is governed by federal common law. A Bivens action may only be defeated if defendants show 'special factors counselling hesitation' or that Congress has provided an alternative remedy it explicitly declared to be an equally effective substitute. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) was not declared an exclusive substitute; in fact, legislative history shows Congress viewed the FTCA and Bivens as parallel remedies. The Bivens remedy is also more effective because it serves a greater deterrent purpose against individual officers, allows for punitive damages, permits a jury trial, and ensures a uniform rule of liability, all of which the FTCA lacks. Furthermore, to fulfill the deterrent purpose of Bivens, a uniform federal common law rule must allow the action to survive the victim's death, especially when the alleged unconstitutional conduct caused the death, as relying on state law could subvert the policy of vindicating constitutional rights.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Powell
Yes, the Bivens action is appropriate in this case. While agreeing with the judgment, the majority's opinion includes dicta that unnecessarily restricts judicial discretion. The new rule requiring Congress to have 'explicitly declared' a remedy to be a substitute is an overly rigid condition not supported by precedent. Courts should retain broader discretion to weigh policy considerations when deciding whether to infer a constitutional remedy, rather than being bound by a formulaic test based on Congress's specific choice of words. In this case, the FTCA is clearly not an adequate alternative remedy, so inferring a Bivens action is proper without applying the majority's rigid new standard.
Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
No, a Bivens action should not be available. The Federal Tort Claims Act provides an adequate remedy for the claim, and that should end the inquiry. The majority's new test, which requires an 'explicitly declared' substitute remedy from Congress, is an unwarranted expansion of Bivens. This novel test would illogically permit Bivens actions to proceed even where Congress has provided other effective remedies, such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions against state officials. The Bivens remedy should be limited to circumstances where a plaintiff has no other effective means of redress.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No, a Bivens action should not be inferred from the Eighth Amendment. The Bivens decision itself was wrongly decided, as the creation of damages remedies is a legislative function that the judiciary should not usurp. Congress, through the FTCA, has already provided a remedy, and it is not the Court's role to conduct a policy-based comparison of the 'effectiveness' of different remedies. The Court's formalistic approach, which presumes a Bivens remedy exists unless Congress explicitly preempts it, undermines the separation of powers and inappropriately fashions a federal common law of damages without constitutional or statutory authority.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens and expands the Bivens doctrine by establishing a high bar for precluding such claims. It clarifies that a constitutionally implied remedy can coexist with a statutory one unless Congress expressly makes the statutory remedy exclusive. By creating a presumption in favor of the Bivens remedy, the Court solidified a powerful tool for holding individual federal officers accountable for constitutional violations. Furthermore, by establishing a uniform federal common law rule for survivorship, the Court ensured that the remedy's deterrent effect is not undermined by restrictive state laws, particularly in cases where the official's misconduct results in the victim's death.
