45 F.4th 1134
10th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiff Anderson Silva, an ADX Florence inmate, alleged that Officer Brandon Shaw entered his cell while Silva was restrained and used excessive force, causing injuries to his back, right leg, and left hand.
- Silva sued Shaw and the United States pro se, asserting an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim under a Bivens cause of action; district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
- On appeal Silva (now with counsel) argued his claim falls within Carlson (Eighth Amendment prisoner-medical indifference Bivens precedent) or, if not, that expanding Bivens is justified here under the Ziglar v. Abbasi framework.
- The Tenth Circuit applied the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Egbert v. Boule and treated Silva’s claim as a Bivens expansion (different context than Carlson) subject to the special-factors/alternative-remedies inquiry.
- The court held the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Administrative Remedy Program is an adequate alternative remedial scheme that forecloses a Bivens action in this context and affirmed dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Silva’s Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim is a permissible non-expansion Bivens action (Carlson) or a new Bivens context | Silva: claim arises under the Eighth Amendment and fits Carlson, so no Bivens expansion needed | Defendants: claim differs from Carlson (excessive force vs. deliberate indifference), so it would be a Bivens expansion | Court: claim is a new context and thus an expansion of Bivens |
| Whether available alternative remedies (e.g., BOP Administrative Remedy Program) bar a Bivens remedy under Egbert | Silva: BOP remedy is a BOP regulatory scheme and not a congressionally provided substitute, thus inadequate to displace Bivens | Defendants: BOP Administrative Remedy Program is an adequate alternative that provides deterrence and forecloses Bivens | Court: BOP Administrative Remedy Program is an adequate alternative; under Egbert it independently forecloses the Bivens claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (implied damages remedy for federal officers' Fourth Amendment violations)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference Bivens action recognized)
- Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793 (recent Supreme Court decision emphasizing alternative remedies and congressional role; narrowed Bivens extensions)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (two-step framework: new-context inquiry and special factors counseling hesitation)
- Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735 (new-context principle: same constitutional provision can still present a new Bivens context)
- Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (availability of BOP remedial mechanisms can foreclose a Bivens action)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards and the Court's skepticism about judicially implied causes of action)