Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
All 336 flagged citations have now been read. The other opinions applied the original remedy, reported higher-court limitations, rejected arguments that Bivens was overruled, or used nearby adverse language for unrelated authorities; one vacated panel opinion received no treatment weight.
18,214 later cases cite Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics; 336 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The court declined to extend Bivens to servicemembers’ constitutional damages claims arising from radiation exposure incident to military service because the Feres special factors also barred that remedy.
Seveney v. United States Government, Department of the Navy · D.R.I. · filed
It would seem that a Bivens remedy, so-called, implying a private right of action for damages under the Constitution, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), is barred as to Count I of the amended complaint (to the extent of the claim relating to the original exposures to radiation) for the same reasons that Feres bars kindred suits under the FTCA and PVA.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Bivens to a constitutional challenge to federal motor-carrier regulations because the Administrative Procedure Act supplied a substantial statutory remedy.
Cousins v. Dole · D. Me. · filed
As the First Circuit has previously stated, “the existence of a statutory remedy which is designed to implement the constitutional guarantee may itself render the Bivens analysis inappropriate.” ... The Court therefore concludes that the existence of an effective and substantial statutory remedy in the Administrative Procedure Act obviates the need to imply a constitutional remedy from the Fifth Amendment in this case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Fifth Circuit confined Bivens by holding that the Civil Service Reform Act precludes Bivens claims arising from federal civilian employment, including constitutional theories beyond the First Amendment.
Aletha Rollins and Jessie Rollins v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Secretary of the United States Department of the Army · Fifth Circuit · filed
We decline to do so here. We are persuaded that the Rollinses’ Bivens claims are precluded by the CSRA.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The D.C. Circuit confined Bivens by extending Meyer’s entity bar to a private school treated as a federal actor, leaving damages claims only against individual agents.
Park Dean Kauffman Gaila M. Kauffman v. Anglo-American School of Sofia, an Unincorporated Association · D.C. Circuit · filed
Our disposition is controlled by FDIC v. Meyer, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994), which holds that a federal agency — even one as to which Congress has waived sovereign immunity — is not subject to liability in damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We conclude that an entity that is not a federal agency, but that is constrained by the Constitution in some or all of its acts solely because of lesser links to the federal government, is equally exempt from Bivens liability.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Third Circuit confined Bivens by holding that the Civil Service Reform Act is the exclusive remedy for a postal employee’s employment-related malicious-prosecution claim.
Patrick Sarullo v. United States Postal Service · Third Circuit · filed
With respect to the Bivens claim, we dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the Civil Service Reform Act affords Sarullo the exclusive remedy for his malicious prosecution claim. We therefore need not reach the question of qualified immunity discussed by the District Court.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The en banc Seventh Circuit declined to create a Bivens remedy against military personnel and civilian superiors for the overseas detention and alleged torture of civilian contractors in a combat zone.
Donald Vance v. Donald Rumsfeld · Seventh Circuit · filed
Whatever presumption in favor of a Bivens-like remedy may once have existed has long since been abrogated.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Bivens to a federal prisoner’s First Amendment retaliation claim because special factors counseled against a new remedy.
White v. Hess · E.D.N.Y. · filed
The Court “thus conclude[s] that the special factors analysis prevents an extension of Bivens to cover” White’s First Amendment retaliation claims.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Bivens to a federal prisoner’s Fifth Amendment procedural-due-process challenge to prison disciplinary proceedings.
Johnson v. Ramos · N.D. Tex. · filed
Several of the same special factors which the Court cited to refuse extending Bivens in Ziglar apply to Plaintiff, and alternative remedial schemes exist by which he could have sought relief, so this Court will not recognize a new Bivens action.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Bivens to an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim by a federal prisoner.
Vasquez v. Cheatham · M.D. Fla. · filed
Therefore, the court should decline creating an implied damages remedy for plaintiff's excessive force claim. For the reasons set forth above, Bivens does not extend to the facts of this claim, and Plaintiff lacks a cause of action.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim.
Jackson v. Lara · E.D. Texas · filed
Assuming the claim was timely filed, plaintiff has failed to state a claim because Bivens has not been extended to create an implied cause of action for an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to Eighth Amendment excessive-force and First Amendment retaliation claims.
Watkins v. Carter · E.D. Texas · filed
Thus, the Report and Recommendation not only found that Plaintiff's claims presented new contexts for Bivens but also, through its citations to precedent, demonstrated that this Circuit has recognized that special factors counseling hesitation exist in these contexts. As a result, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court refused to extend Bivens to a First Amendment retaliation claim.
Egbert v. Boule · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Now presented with the question whether to extend Bivens to this context, we hold that there is no Bivens action for First Amendment retaliation.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to constitutional damages claims arising from federal immigration detention and family-separation policies.
K.O. v. Jefferson B. Sessions · D.C. Circuit · filed
Thus, the existence of other remedies, which would provide the principal relief the Appellants seek, counsels for this Court’s hesitation in extending a Bivens remedy. For all these reasons, we affirm the District Court’s dismissal of the Appellants’ constitutional claims seeking a damage remedy.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to a novel Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim.
Austin v. United States of America · E.D. Texas · filed
Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim presents a new context because the Supreme Court has not previously recognized an implied cause of action for Plaintiff’s novel claim. There are special factors counseling hesitation in extending Bivens to create new causes of action for the Fourteenth Amendment claim, including the availability of other remedies, such as the FTCA claim that Plaintiff is currently pursuing.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to the prisoner's additional Eighth Amendment, equal-protection, and due-process claims.
Robert O. Dinkins v. USA · C.D. California · filed
Moreover, while plaintiff does not raise specific challenges to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis with respect to the rest of his claims, the Court in its de novo review agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the other Eighth Amendment claims, as well as the Equal Protection and Due Process claims, be dismissed for both failing the Ziglar test for Bivens claims and for additionally failing to state a claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to Michael Cohen's First Amendment retaliation, Fourth Amendment seizure, and Eighth Amendment solitary-confinement claims.
Cohen v. United States of America · S.D.N.Y. · filed
As things currently stand, however, the Supreme Court’s precedents squarely and unequivocally foreclose the Bivens claims here. None of the claims present a direct parallel to Bivens, Passman, or Carlson; even if one did, the Egbert Court has thrown into doubt the availability of the Bivens cause of action for any new claim, particularly where, as here, alternative remedial structures are in place. As such, Cohen’s Bivens claims must be dismissed.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused a Bivens remedy for Eighth Amendment claims against BOP officials because the Administrative Remedy Program supplied an alternative process.
Noe v. United States Government · D. Colorado · filed
As the Magistrate Judge noted, the BOP Administrative Remedy Program qualifies as an adequate alternative remedy and his Bivens claims must be dismissed. See Silva, 45 F.4th at 1141 (affirming the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims of excessive force against BOP officials). Since Egbert, a Bivens action is not just a “disfavored judicial activity” but “is impermissible in virtually all circumstances.” Id. at 1140.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to Fifth Amendment claims arising from CBP airport searches and family separation.
Ortega v. United States Customs and Border Protection · D. Massachusetts · filed
The Fifth Amendment claims therefore unquestionably arise in a new Bivens context, and accordingly Counts 5 and 9 will be dismissed.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused a Bivens remedy for a prisoner's dental-care claims because the BOP Administrative Remedy Program was an adequate alternative.
Noe v. United States Government · Tenth Circuit · filed
Thus, Noe’s Bivens claim is, as the district court concluded, not cognizable.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to an excessive-force claim against Deputy U.S. Marshals because alternative remedial procedures existed.
Logsdon v. United States Marshal Service · Tenth Circuit · filed
A second independent ground for not recognizing a Bivens action in this case is that the availability of alternative remedies for misconduct by Deputy U.S. Marshals suggests that this court should not be the institution to create a remedy.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused a Bivens medical-care claim despite Carlson because the BOP Administrative Remedy Program foreclosed the remedy.
Waltermeyer v. FCI Berlin, Warden · D.N.H. · filed
Following Egbert, “the availability of the ARP is sufficient to foreclose a Bivens claim despite any factual similarity between the two.” Id. In Noe, the Tenth Circuit concluded that it “need not decide whether [the plaintiff’s] case is meaningfully different from Carlson because in the wake of Egbert and Silva v. United States, the availability of the ARP is sufficient to foreclose a Bivens claim despite any factual similarity between the two.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to Fifth Amendment due-process claims involving BOP grievance procedures.
Carr v. BOP · N.D. Texas · filed
Accordingly, Carr’s purported Bivens claims regarding the timing of receipt of grievance response mail while incarcerated arise in new context.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused Bivens relief for federal-prison claims because the BOP Administrative Remedy Program foreclosed a judicial damages action.
West v. (lnu) (1) · D. Kansas · filed
“[B]ecause Bivens ‘is concerned solely with deterring the unconstitutional acts of individual officers,’ ” we find the availability of the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program offers an independently sufficient ground to foreclose Plaintiff's Bivens claim. Id. (quoting Egbert, 142 S. Ct. at 1806 (quoting Malesko, 534 U.S. at 71, 122 S. Ct. 515)). Based on the reasoning set forth in the recent Tenth Circuit opinions cited above, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under Bivens.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused Bivens relief for claims involving prison visitation, discrimination, and failure to protect.
Jones v. Hemingway · E.D. Michigan · filed
Having received no objection to dismissal based on failure to state a cognizable Bivens claim, the Court will accept the R&R’s recommendation of dismissal on that ground.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to failure-to-protect, excessive-force, and due-process claims in federal prison.
Lynch v. Thomson · M.D. Pennsylvania · filed
Having concluded that Lynch’s failure to protect, excessive force, and due process claims present new contexts for Bivens liability, we must determine whether “there are any special factors that counsel hesitation” in extending Bivens. Hernandez, 589 U.S. at 102 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (quoting Ziglar, 582 U.S. at 136).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to a prisoner's delayed eye-treatment claim.
Block v. United States Government · D. Minnesota · filed
As such, the Court will decline to extend Bivens to Block’s claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to work-injury and related medical-care claims because the Inmate Accident Compensation Act supplied an alternative remedy.
Mouzon v. United States · S.D.N.Y. · filed
The Court therefore declines to extend a Bivens remedy to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Bivens claims is granted.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to a chronic-care claim involving denial of medication-assisted opioid treatment.
Nixon v. United States · M.D. Pennsylvania · filed
Other factors counsel against extending Bivens into this context, such as Nixon’s access to the prison’s administrative remedy program (which was unavailable to the estate of the deceased plaintiff in Car/son), and the fact that provision of chronic medical care “is a specialized activity requiring a high degree of training and qualification,” which courts are ill-equipped to regulate, particularly in the prison context.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to the prisoner's claims because alternative prison remedies and separation-of-powers concerns foreclosed a damages action.
Steele v. Miller · D. Kansas · filed
The same rationale applies here. First, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are materially different than Bivens, Carlson, or Davis. Second, even if they were not, they still would be foreclosed by the existence of the ARP. Third, this Court must recognize the fact that Congress is better suited to weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action under Plaintiff’s circumstances to proceed, which means that this Court may not extend Bivens to imply a cause of action for Plaintiff.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment claims against Veterans Affairs officials.
Ellsworth III v. Marx · E.D. Texas · filed
For these reasons, the court finds no basis to extend Bivens in this case. Thus, plaintiffs have failed to object substantively to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court affirmed dismissal of Fourth Amendment false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims as unavailable under Bivens after Egbert.
Sigalovskaya v. Braden · Second Circuit · filed
The district court granted the motion, concluding that following Egbert, Sigalovskaya has no cause of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court refused to extend Bivens to prisoner due-process, failure-to-protect, retaliation, and nonemergency medical-care claims.
Sheppard · M.D. Pennsylvania · filed
Other factors counsel against extending Bivens into any of these contexts, including the existence of the BOP’s administrative remedy program (which was unavailable to the estate of the deceased plaintiff in Carlson), and the deference that courts must afford to prison officials in matters of prison administration.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace