Background
Robert Tlusty, a former federal prisoner represented by counsel on appeal, filed a pro se complaint against nine named federal prison officials and John and Jane Doe defendants. The complaint alleged that seven officials violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide medical treatment for chemical burns to his hands caused by shaving products. The remaining officials were accused of illegally seizing his grievance forms. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal, noting that the claims presented a new context for Bivens actions and that special factors counseled against extending the remedy. The district court adopted the report and dismissed the complaint.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the dismissal de novo under Section nineteen hundred fifteen A of Title twenty-eight of the United States Code. The court applied the standard from Ashcroft versus Iqbal, requiring plausible facts to state a claim. The court analyzed whether the claims fell within the three contexts where the Supreme Court has permitted an implied right of action under Bivens. The court found that Tlusty’s injuries meaningfully differed from the fatal asthma injuries in Carlson versus Green. The court also noted that Tlusty had an available alternative remedy under the prison grievance system. Citing Johnson versus Terry, the court held that special factors counseled against extending Bivens to this new context.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces the Eleventh Circuit’s strict approach to Bivens claims, requiring plaintiffs to fit their injuries within existing Supreme Court precedents or demonstrate that no alternative remedies exist.