1:20-cv-02516
D. Colo.Feb 14, 2025Background
- Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, an inmate at ADX Florence, originally filed suit against several Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officials, alleging physical abuse, failure to intervene, and denial of medical care, bringing claims under Bivens, the Eighth Amendment, First Amendment, and the FTCA.
- The operative complaint (Second Amended Complaint) included both monetary and injunctive relief, with the Bivens/Eighth Amendment claims previously allowed to proceed by the district court.
- Legal landscape shifted after the Supreme Court’s Egbert v. Boule decision and subsequent Tenth Circuit cases, sharply curtailing Bivens remedies for constitutional violations in contexts such as prison conditions.
- The court, bound by new Tenth Circuit precedent, dismissed Mohamed’s Bivens claims, leaving only FTCA claims (for battery) against the United States.
- Mohamed moved to file a Third Amended Complaint, seeking to reassert Bivens claims and request for injunctive/declaratory relief but offered no new factual or legal basis for the amendment.
- Court denied leave to amend as untimely and futile; only FTCA claims for damages remain viable in the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mohamed may amend to reassert Bivens claims | Mohamed seeks to add back Bivens claims, believing re-pleading is proper | Defendants argue precedent now forecloses Bivens claims | Amendment futile—Bivens claims not cognizable |
| Timeliness of motion for leave to amend | Recent events justify amendment; action not untimely | Amendment is untimely; no new facts or law | Amendment denied as untimely |
| Availability of injunctive/declaratory relief under FTCA | Desires order for medical treatment/declaration | Such remedies not available under FTCA | Only money damages available under FTCA |
| Whether amendment adds materially different claims | Argues content is the same as operative complaint | Amendment regurgitates dismissed or futile claims | No new viable claims—amendment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (primary precedent for implied constitutional damages actions against federal officials)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017) (limited expansion of Bivens remedies and set framework for new contexts)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (recognized Bivens action for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference in prison context)
- Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022) (narrowed contexts permitting Bivens remedies, emphasizing judicial restraint)
- Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735 (2020) (further restricted Bivens claims in new contexts)