Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar ROBERT J. TLUSTY v. ALEXANDER Health Services Lieutenant Commander GARDNER Physician Assistant PITTMAN Assistant Health Services Administrator S. DEPAUL Nurse J. SMITH Correctional Officer et al USCA11 Case: 25-11974 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 07/08/2026 Page: 1 of 5 2

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-08

Docket: 5:24-cv-00167-MCR-MJF

The eleventh-circuit affirmed the dismissal of Robert Tlusty’s pro se complaint against federal prison officials for failure to state a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court held that Tlusty’s claims did not present cognizable causes of action under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics*. The court applied the two-step *Bivens* analysis established in *Egbert v. Boule* and controlled by its recent decision in *Johnson v. Terry*. First, the court determined that Tlusty’s claims presented a “new context” distinct from the three Supreme Court contexts where *Bivens* remedies are permitted. Specifically, the Eighth Amendment claim regarding chemical burns to the hands differed in type and severity from the fatal asthma case in *Carlson v. Green*, and the Fourth Amendment claim regarding the seizure of grievance forms involved a prison search rather than a private residence. Second, the court found that “special factors” counseled against extending *Bivens* to these new contexts because Tlusty had an alternative remedy available through the prison’s administrative grievance system. The court rejected the argument that the existence of this administrative remedy was insufficient, citing *Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko*. As a practical consequence, the district court’s dismissal order stands, and Tlusty is barred from pursuing damages against the federal officials for these alleged constitutional violations in federal court.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.