Carlson v. Green
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
94 later cases cite Carlson v. Green; 94 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 Carlson v. Green?
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 Carlson's medical-indifference remedy to an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, finding a new context and special factors against a damages remedy.
Hoffman v. Preston · E.D. Cal. · filed
Therefore, since Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim is ‘different in a meaningful way from’ the claims raised in Bivens, Davis, and Carlson, the undersigned agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim is a new Bivens context. ... Plaintiff has or had alternative remedies available to him and ... legislative action suggests that Congress does not want an implied damages remedy for Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court held that factual parallels with Carlson cannot alone justify extending its implied damages remedy; a plaintiff must satisfy the more restrictive framework developed after Carlson.
Egbert v. Boule · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
In short, as we explained in Ziglar, a plaintiff cannot justify a Bivens extension based on “parallel circumstances” with Bivens, Passman, or Carlson unless he also satisfies the “analytic framework” prescribed by the last four decades of intervening case law.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit declined to extend Carlson by analogy to claims against an executive official directing a multi-agency operation.
Pettibone v. Russell · Ninth Circuit · filed
Carlson, of course, was different from this case because it involved prison officials and a claim of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. 446 U.S. at 17. This case is like neither Bivens nor Carlson, and we are not convinced that a plaintiff can defeat a finding that a case presents a new context by showing that each of its facts, taken separately, resembles facts found in different Bivens precedents. But even if such a mix-and-match analysis were permissible, we would still hold that this case presents a new context.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Carlson to a pretrial detainee's Fifth Amendment medical and failure-to-protect claims against officials outside the detention facility.
Dean v. Robinson · W.D.N.Y. · filed
Applying these principles to this case, it is apparent that the Court cannot extend the Bivens remedy to the context presented here. First, the context is undeniably a new one. The closest comparator is the decision in Carlson, where the Supreme Court recognized a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment due to prison officials’ failure to provide medical care for an inmate’s asthma. ... However, there are several meaningful differences between the instant case and Carlson.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Fourth Circuit confined Carlson to medical-care decisions and declined to extend it to prison housing-placement decisions affecting an inmate's medical needs.
Nellson v. Doe · Fourth Circuit · filed
For these purposes, the Supreme Court instructs, “courts should not interpret Carlson to apply outside the precise context at issue in that case.” ... That makes this case less like Carlson, which turned on decisions about an inmate’s medical care, and more like Tate and Bulger, in which we held that claims arising from administrative placement decisions fall outside Carlson’s “context.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Carlson's medical-care remedy to an Eighth Amendment excessive-force and battery claim against a federal corrections captain.
Head v. Rakowski · D. Md. · filed
The most closely analogous Bivens case to Plaintiffs claim is Carlson v. Green, in which the Court entertained a damages remedy for deliberate indifference to an inmate’s urgent medical crisis that ultimately resulted in the inmate’s death. ... Neither Bivens nor its two successor cases recognized a claim for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment. Thus, the claim clearly arises in a new context for the purposes of the first step of the Bivens analysis. ... Applying the second step of the Bivens analysis, the existence of multiple alternative remedies for excessive force in prisons counsels against extending Bivens to claims of excessive force or battery.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Carlson to Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims involving sexual harassment by prison staff.
King v. Ponce · D.N.J. · filed
Unlike Carlson, where the issue involved the prison’s response to a medical emergency, the defendants’ actions were guided by PREA and BOP Program Statement 5324.3. This case presents a new Bivens context from Carlson, and the existence of the BOP Administrative Remedy Program counsels hesitation in implying a damages remedy in the new context. ... Therefore, this Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim presents a new Bivens context, and at least one special factor—all that is needed—the existence of the BOP’s administrative remedy program, counsels against creating a Bivens damages remedy here.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Carlson's medical-care remedy to Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims involving confiscated property, showers, and toiletries.
Dunnigan v. Hutchison · W.D. Pa. · filed
The Supreme Court has twice extended a Bivens remedy ... in Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), where the Court permitted a Bivens remedy against federal prison officials for failure to treat a prisoner’s serious medical condition. ... Therefore, the Court finds that each of Dunnigan’s claims proposes to extend the Bivens remedy to a new context. ... Such special factors counsel against extending the Bivens remedy to Dunnigan’s claims in this case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that Carlson does not authorize a federal prisoner's medical-indifference claim when the Bureau of Prisons Administrative Remedy Program was available.
Waltermeyer v. FCI Berlin, Warden · D.N.H. · filed
Regardless of the similarity between Waltermeyer’s alleged circumstances and the facts in Carlson, the ARP’s existence eliminates any possibility that his claim survives.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Carlson to a pretrial detainee's Fifth Amendment medical-indifference claim involving less severe injuries and a different category of officer.
Carattini v. Behun · S.D.N.Y. · filed
Because Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficiently similar serious medical needs as the plaintiff in Carlson, the Court finds that his Fifth Amendment claim presents a new Bivens context. ... The Court does, however, find that, the existence of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, counsels against recognizing Plaintiff’s new Bivens claim for deliberate indifference.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Third Circuit declined to extend Carlson to an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim involving inmate-on-inmate violence.
Rinaldi v. United States · Third Circuit · filed
This holding derived from the Supreme Court’s decision in Egbert v. Boule,18 which we have said holds that “unless a case is indistinguishable from Bivens, Davis [v. Passman19], or Carlson [v. Green20], a damages remedy may be created by Congress, but not by the courts.”21 We “may not create one, no matter how desirable that might be as a policy matter.”22 Here, Rinaldi, like the plaintiff in Fisher, raised an Eighth Amendment claim under Bivens for failure to prevent inmate-on-inmate violence. However, Fisher compels us to conclude that “there is no implied constitutional damages action against federal officials who fail to protect prisoners from the criminal acts of their fellow inmates.”23 Thus, Rinaldi’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim is not cognizable under Bivens.24
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined Carlson's remedy for a medical-indifference claim based on delayed post-surgical follow-up and nonfatal nerve damage.
Mouzon v. United States · S.D.N.Y. · filed
Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to medical needs theory, although it is the same claim for relief as that raised in Carlson, nevertheless presents a new Bivens context.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Seventh Circuit held that Carlson permits hands-on medical-indifference claims against treating personnel but does not extend to supervisory medical-policy claims.
Brooks v. Richardson · Seventh Circuit · filed
If that is not just vicarious liability by another name, see Vance, 701 F.3d at 203–05, it is assuredly a new context to which Bivens and Carlson should not be extended.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Carlson to a federal pretrial detainee's medical-indifference claim involving different alleged conduct and injuries.
Steele v. Miller · D. Kan. · filed
Unlike the plaintiff in Carlson, Plaintiff in this matter is a pretrial detainee and brings his claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, the plaintiff in Carlson alleged that prison officials acted against the doctor’s orders and attempted to use a respirator known to be inoperative. ... Here, Plaintiff has not alleged that prison officials acted against a doctor’s orders, nor does he allege that an inoperable medical device was used on him. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims are materially different than Carlson ... which means that Plaintiff’s claims arise in a new Bivens context.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Carlson to a pretrial detainee's Fifth Amendment claim arising from an eighteen-hour delay in treating nonfatal stab wounds.
Livingston v. United States · E.D.N.Y. · filed
On balance, because the factual circumstances in this case differ significantly from those in Carlson and because this case comes under the Fifth Amendment rather than the Eighth, the Court finds that this case presents a new context.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Carlson v. Green 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