Carlson v. Green

Supreme Court of the United States · Torts

TortsBivens actionsFederal Tort Claims ActSurvivorshipConstitutional tortsEighth AmendmentBivensFTCA

Facts

Respondent brought suit on behalf of the estate of her deceased son, Joseph Jones, Jr., alleging that federal prison officials violated his due process, equal protection, and Eighth Amendment rights and that he suffered personal injuries from which he died. She sought compensatory and punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). The lower courts agreed that the complaint pleaded an Eighth Amendment violation under Estelle v. Gamble and stated a damages claim under Bivens. The dispute before the Supreme Court was whether the availability of an FTCA action displaced the Bivens remedy and whether survival of the constitutional claim was governed by state law or federal common law.

Issue

Whether a damages remedy is available directly under the Constitution against federal prison officials even though the allegations could also support an action against the United States under the FTCA, and whether survival of that Bivens claim is governed by federal common law or by state survivorship statutes.

Rule

Victims of constitutional violations by federal agents may recover damages directly under the Constitution unless defendants show either special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative congressional action, or that Congress has provided an alternative remedy that it explicitly declared to be a substitute and viewed as equally effective. Because Bivens actions are creatures of federal law, survivorship is a question of federal law, and when a relevant state survival statute would abate a Bivens-type action arising from conduct that caused death, federal common law permits the action to survive under a uniform federal rule.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, a federal detainee alleges that individual officers at a federal holding facility deliberately ignored his serious medical condition, causing permanent injury. He sues the officers directly for damages under the Constitution, and the officers argue the suit is barred because the same events would also support a negligence action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

How should the court rule on the officers' argument?

Explanation. The majority held that a Bivens remedy is not defeated simply because the facts could also support an FTCA claim. It may be defeated only if special factors counsel hesitation or if Congress provided an alternative remedy that it explicitly declared to be a substitute and viewed as equally effective. The FTCA was treated as parallel and complementary, not automatically exclusive. (Derived from Carlson v. Green (n.d.).)