Wiley v. Fernandez
9:19-cv-00652
N.D.N.Y.Nov 24, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Sean T. Wiley, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, sued BOP officials (including Warden Fernandez, Lts. Gianelli and Shipman, C.O. Bowman, and a hospital administrator) under the FTCA and for constitutional violations (First and Eighth Amendments).
- Facts alleged: on Feb. 14, 2018 Bowman shoved Wiley (handcuffed) into a wall; the next day Gianelli allegedly used force while removing handcuffs and threatened Wiley not to complain.
- Wiley filed administrative remedies complaining of medical denial, staff intimidation, the Feb. 14 assault, and alleged retaliatory SHU placement and a falsified incident report by Shipman that led to disciplinary sanctions and transfer.
- Defendants moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss Wiley’s First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims (challenging availability of a Bivens damages remedy).
- The magistrate judge issued a Report‑Recommendation and Order recommending that the partial motion to dismiss be GRANTED, concluding both claims present new Bivens contexts and that special factors (PLRA, BOP administrative remedies, FTCA/habeas alternatives, and respect for prison administration) counsel hesitation in extending Bivens.
- The court did not resolve exhaustion on the merits because it dismissed the Bivens claims on the remedial‑availability ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Bivens damages remedy extends to a First Amendment retaliation claim by a federal inmate | Wiley contends defendants retaliated after he filed grievances and thus violated his First Amendment rights | Defendants argue Supreme Court has not recognized a Bivens remedy for First Amendment inmate retaliation; alternative remedies (BOP ARP, habeas) and PLRA counsel hesitation | Dismissed: court declined to extend Bivens to First Amendment retaliation (new context; special factors counsel hesitation) |
| Whether a Bivens damages remedy extends to an Eighth Amendment excessive‑force claim by a federal inmate | Wiley alleges excessive force by officers (Feb. 14–15 assaults and threats) | Defendants argue excessive‑force claims present a new Bivens context and special factors (PLRA, ARP, FTCA, prison security concerns) counsel hesitation | Dismissed: court declined to extend Bivens to Eighth Amendment excessive‑force claim (new context; special factors counsel hesitation) |
| Whether Wiley exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA for the challenged conduct | Wiley asserts his claims were exhausted and cites ARP exhibits | Defendants contend certain ARPs were not fully exhausted and thus the PLRA bars suit | Not decided on merits: court declined to resolve exhaustion because Bivens remedy unavailable; exhaustion issue left unadjudicated |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing implied damages remedy against federal officers for Fourth Amendment violations)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (explaining Bivens extension framework: new context and special factors counseling hesitation)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (recognizing a Bivens remedy for Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care in federal prison)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (noting Supreme Court has not recognized Bivens for First Amendment claims)
- Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118 (alternative remedies may preclude Bivens relief)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment excessive‑force/deliberate‑indifference principles and standards)