70 F.4th 198
4th Cir.2023Background
- In 2016 federal inmate Joseph Mays, employed in the BOP UNICOR optics shop at FCI Butner, filed grievances alleging racial discrimination and retaliation by UNICOR manager Jamie Hoskins and other prison staff.
- After complaints and meetings, Mays was fired from UNICOR, placed in administrative detention (Aug 11–Oct 21), and later transferred; officials did not charge him with a disciplinary offense after investigation.
- Mays sued pro se in 2018 seeking money damages under Bivens for First Amendment retaliation, Fifth Amendment procedural due process (detention, firing, transfer without process), and Fifth Amendment equal protection (race discrimination).
- The district court dismissed most claims and then dismissed the remaining Bivens claims for failure to state a cognizable Bivens claim; Mays appealed and counsel was appointed.
- On appeal, counsel abandoned the First Amendment claim (Egbert forecloses First Amendment Bivens claims); the Fourth Circuit addressed only the Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection Bivens claims and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bivens authorizes a damages action for Fifth Amendment procedural due process violations (administrative detention, firing from UNICOR, transfer without notice/hearing) | Mays: Bivens should extend to permit money damages for these Fifth Amendment deprivations by federal prison officials | Defendants: Extending Bivens would create a new context; separation-of-powers and special factors counsels against judicially creating a damages remedy for prison-management decisions | Held: No Bivens extension. Claim arises in a new context and special factors (BOP expertise, existing administrative remedies, Congressional role, systemic consequences) bar relief |
| Whether Bivens authorizes a damages action for Fifth Amendment equal protection (race discrimination) by federal prison officials | Mays: Davis supports a Fifth Amendment Bivens remedy for discrimination, so his race-based claim should be cognizable | Defendants: Davis is narrowly limited; Mays’s claim is a different context (prison officials, inmate discipline/transfer) and special factors preclude extension | Held: No Bivens extension. Claim is a new context and special factors preclude creating a damages remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of an implied Fourth Amendment damages remedy)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (recognition of a Fifth Amendment damages remedy for gender discrimination)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (recognition of an Eighth Amendment damages remedy for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (framework limiting Bivens expansions; new-context/special-factors inquiry)
- Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735 (reinforcing the two-step Bivens analysis and reluctance to extend Bivens)
- Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793 (refusal to extend Bivens and instruction to pause if Congress better suited to provide relief)
- Bulger v. Hurwitz, 62 F.4th 127 (4th Cir. 2023) (declining to extend Bivens to prison-related claims; reliance on special factors)