Left Fork Mining Company, Inc. v. Irving Hooker, 775 F.3d 768

Background

Left Fork Mining (and related parties) operated the Straight Creek underground coal mine; MSHA inspectors issued safety orders and citations after elevated methane readings and seal concerns.
MSHA issued an Imminent Danger Order, a No‑Access (K) Order, and later an Abatement Order and Modified Abatement Order requiring de‑energizing and withdrawal of miners.
De‑energizing stopped pumps, the mine flooded between January 2012 and later, causing property and equipment loss.
Left Fork filed a Notice of Contest with the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission; an ALJ later invalidated the Abatement and Modified Abatement Orders.
Left Fork sued MSHA employees under Bivens (Fifth Amendment due process) seeking money damages; district court dismissed, holding the Mine Act’s remedial scheme precluded a Bivens remedy.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Bivens damages remedy is available for alleged Fifth Amendment property deprivation arising from MSHA orders	Left Fork: Bivens applies because MSHA employees’ orders caused unconstitutional property loss and no adequate remedy for money damages exists under the Mine Act	MSHA: Mine Act provides an alternative, comprehensive remedial scheme (administrative review, temporary relief, court of appeals review) that precludes a Bivens action	Court: Bivens remedy unavailable; Mine Act’s remedial scheme is an adequate alternative and precludes Bivens
Whether Congress’s remedial design and other "special factors" counsel hesitation in creating a new Bivens cause of action	Left Fork: Statutory remedies are ineffective to make it whole; thus Bivens should be authorized	MSHA: Congress deliberately limited judicial review; special factors (comprehensive scheme, statutory limits on review) counsel hesitation	Court: Special factors present; Congress’s scheme and intent preclude recognizing Bivens relief
Whether alleged improper motive (retaliation) defeats application of the Mine Act remedy bar	Left Fork: MSHA acted maliciously to cause flooding and property loss, akin to retaliatory prosecution analogies	MSHA: No penalties or prosecutions were imposed; allegations of improper motive are conclusory and insufficient	Court: Plaintiff failed to plead nonconclusory facts showing improper motive; analogy to criminal prosecutions inapposite
Whether dismissal for failure to state a Bivens claim was proper (procedural question)	Left Fork: Argued pleadings sufficient to state a constitutional claim and warrant Bivens relief	MSHA: Failure to state a claim because Bivens is precluded by statute and special factors; qualified immunity alternative not reached	Court: Dismissal affirmed because Bivens relief is precluded; district court properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6)

Key Cases Cited

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages remedy against federal officers for Fourth Amendment violations)
Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (two‑step test: lack of alternative remedial process and absence of special factors counsels creation of Bivens remedy)
Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (Mine Act establishes detailed administrative review scheme; limits on other judicial remedies)
Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (existence of meaningful statutory remedies counsels hesitation to create Bivens remedies even if monetary relief lacking)
Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (prudential limits on creating Bivens remedies when alternative statutory schemes exist)
Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (Bivens relief allowed where statutory alternative was not intended by Congress as a substitute for constitutional remedy)
Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (Bivens‑type relief available where no Congressional intent to preclude judicial remedy was shown)