87 F.4th 358
7th Cir.2023Background
- Plaintiff Roy Sargeant, a federal prisoner, alleged that case manager Aracelie Barfield retaliated against him by repeatedly assigning him to cells with violent prisoners after he filed grievances.
- Sargeant alleged those housing assignments violated prison policy and led to physical attacks; he sued pro se seeking money damages but did not specify a constitutional theory in the complaint.
- The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and allowed only a First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed, dismissing other intended claims; a later motion to dismiss prompted appointment of counsel.
- Sargeant’s counsel argued on appeal that the screening should have preserved an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim under Bivens; the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on Bivens grounds.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that (1) the complaint’s facts did suggest an Eighth Amendment theory (so the argument wasn’t forfeited), but (2) under modern Bivens doctrine (Abbasi and Egbert) an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against a federal official in this context presents a new context and is precluded by separation-of-powers concerns and existing remedial schemes (e.g., PLRA grievance process).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of Eighth Amendment claim | Sargeant’s complaint facts plausibly raised Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect; screening dismissal of other claims did not waive appeal | Barfield: Sargeant never amended or contested the screening order, so he forfeited the claim | Court: Not waived—facts in complaint were sufficient and interlocutory screening dismissal may be raised on appeal |
| Does Farmer v. Brennan create an existing Bivens context for failure-to-protect claims? | Farmer assumed Bivens was available for failure-to-protect and thus supports implying damages in this context | Barfield: Farmer did not hold or create a Bivens context; assumption in Farmer is not a binding Bivens holding | Court: Farmer’s unelaborated assumption isn’t a binding Bivens holding; cannot be treated as creating a Bivens context |
| Is Sargeant’s failure-to-protect claim covered by Carlson (i.e., not a new Bivens context)? | Sargeant: Carlson is an Eighth Amendment Bivens precedent and covers deliberate-indifference prisoner claims beyond medical-care facts | Barfield: Sargeant’s claim is meaningfully different (housing assignments vs. medical care); Carlson doesn’t control | Court: Claim presents a new context different from Carlson; special factors counsel hesitation |
| Do special factors (separation of powers / existing remedial schemes) bar a Bivens remedy here? | Sargeant: PLRA grievance rules don’t show Congress meant to preclude Bivens; grievance process was unavailable or inadequate due to retaliation | Barfield: PLRA and BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program provide reasons why Congress/Executive are better suited to address remedies | Court: After Egbert, even one rational reason that Congress is better suited (PLRA/grievance scheme and intrusion into housing policy) precludes implying a Bivens remedy; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizing an implied damages remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (recognizing Bivens damages for Eighth Amendment inadequate-medical-care claim)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (adopting deliberate-indifference standard for prisoner failure-to-protect claims)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (establishing Bivens two-step inquiry and counsel of caution about implying new remedies)
- Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (tightening Bivens test: if any rational reason suggests Congress is better suited to create a remedy, courts must decline)
- Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (declining to extend Bivens to suits against private prisons and noting administrative remedies)
- Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10 (a complaint need not plead legal theory to survive pleading standards)
- Bistrian v. Levi, 912 F.3d 79 (3d Cir. — treating Farmer as supporting failure-to-protect Bivens claim)
- Bulger v. Hurwitz, 62 F.4th 127 (4th Cir. — holding failure-to-protect is a new Bivens context post-Egbert)
- Snowden v. Henning, 72 F.4th 237 (7th Cir. — recent Bivens allowance for a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim)