Watkins v. Carter, 20-40234

Watkins, a former inmate at FCI Beaumont, alleges that between Oct 2008 and Feb 2009 correctional officers repeatedly tried to force him into a shared cell despite his fears; on Feb 26, 2009 he was allegedly wrestled, struck in the left ribcage, leg-cuffed, and dropped in the cell, causing long-term rib pain.
Watkins was released June 7, 2010 and filed this suit in forma pauperis on July 25, 2011 asserting Bivens claims for Eighth (and Fifth) Amendment violations and a claim against the BOP based on alleged policy silence.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as time-barred; the district court adopted that recommendation and dismissed; Watkins appealed.
The Fifth Circuit reviews § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals de novo but may affirm on any proper basis supported by the record.
The court affirmed on the ground that Watkins has no viable Bivens claim against the officers (new context + special factors counsel hesitation) and no Bivens remedy against the BOP (agency damages inappropriate), and expressly declined to decide timeliness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bivens extends to Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim for forcing an inmate into a cell	Watkins: Bivens allows damages for officers' use of force in violation of Eighth Amendment	Defendants: Extending Bivens is disfavored; this is a new context and special factors (FTCA, admin remedies) counsel hesitation	Court: New context under Abbasi; special factors present; decline to extend Bivens — claim dismissed
Whether the BOP can be liable for officers' conduct because of policy silence	Watkins: BOP policies’ silence implicitly sanctioned force; BOP therefore liable	BOP: Damages against agencies are inappropriate and would bypass Bivens’ purpose of deterring officers	Court: No Bivens remedy against federal agencies (Meyer); claim against BOP dismissed

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied damages remedy against federal officers for Fourth Amendment violation)
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (two-step test for extending Bivens: whether case is new context and whether special factors counsel hesitation)
Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735 (2020) (reaffirming that expanding Bivens is disfavored and separation-of-powers concerns govern)
Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (existing Eighth Amendment Bivens context for failure-to-provide-medical-care claims)
Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (limits Bivens remedies and recognizes alternative mechanisms can displace Bivens claims)
F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (no Bivens-style damages remedy against federal agencies)
Cantú v. Moody, 933 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2019) (discussing FTCA and other special factors in Bivens analysis)
Oliva v. Nivar, 973 F.3d 438 (5th Cir. 2020) (applying Abbasi and identifying existing Bivens actions)