Rivera v. Samilo, 370 F. Supp. 3d 362

On Oct. 22, 2013, DEA SA David Samilo and other federal officers stopped a vehicle in which Rivera was a passenger; a duffel with ~3 kg cocaine was found and Rivera was arrested.
Rivera alleges Samilo tightened handcuffs after Rivera complained of a hand injury and denied access to a hand brace, causing injury and need for medical attention.
Rivera sued Samilo and others (Bivens-based claims) asserting violations of multiple constitutional amendments; after motion to dismiss only Rivera's Fourth Amendment excessive-force damages claim against Samilo survived.
After the Supreme Court decided Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017), the district court ordered supplemental briefing on whether Ziglar forecloses Rivera’s Bivens claim.
The court held the case presents a new Bivens context and that alternative remedies (FTCA and state-law avenues) and separation-of-powers concerns counsel against implying a Bivens damages remedy; the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim was dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rivera may pursue an implied Bivens damages action for alleged excessive force during a lawful arrest	Rivera: Bivens involved Fourth Amendment force claims and Ziglar did not eliminate Fourth Amendment Bivens actions; his claim is within Bivens' scope	Samilo: Post-Ziglar courts should not extend Bivens; this factual context is meaningfully different and special factors counsel hesitation	Court: This is a new Bivens context; separation-of-powers and available alternative remedies preclude implying a Bivens remedy; claim dismissed
Whether alternative remedies render a Bivens remedy inappropriate	Rivera: FTCA remedy is now time-barred and thus ineffective	Samilo: Existence of FTCA and state-law remedies (even if not timely or perfect) are adequate alternatives under Ziglar	Court: Availability of FTCA and state-law avenues is a special factor counseling hesitation; adequacy is assessed as a scheme, not based on plaintiff’s forfeiture

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied damages action against federal officers for certain Fourth Amendment violations)
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (established two-step test for extending Bivens and made expansion a disfavored judicial activity)
Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (recognized Bivens-type remedy under the Fifth Amendment)
Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (recognized Bivens remedy under the Eighth Amendment)
Malesko v. Corr. Servs. Corp., 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (refused to extend Bivens and cautioned against implying causes of action)
Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007) (special-factors analysis for implying remedies)
Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118 (2012) (state-law remedies may provide adequate alternatives to Bivens)