McCarthy v. Madigan

Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 · Administrative Law

503 U.S. 140 (1992)

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative Lawexhaustion exceptionsexhaustion of administrative remediesBivensfederal prisonersmoney damagesadministrative inadequacycongressional intent

Facts

While incarcerated at Leavenworth, John J. McCarthy sued four federal prison employees, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical and psychiatric needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His complaint expressly sought money damages only. The Bureau of Prisons had a general inmate grievance procedure allowing review of complaints about imprisonment, but it provided no hearing and did not authorize any particular relief, including monetary damages. The lower courts required McCarthy to exhaust that procedure before pursuing his Bivens suit.

Issue

Must a federal prisoner exhaust the Bureau of Prisons' internal grievance procedure before filing a Bivens action that seeks solely money damages for alleged constitutional violations?

Rule

Where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, courts apply sound judicial discretion consistent with congressional intent and the statutory scheme. In deciding whether to require exhaustion, courts balance the individual's interest in prompt access to a federal forum against institutional interests favoring exhaustion, and exhaustion need not be required when the administrative remedy is inadequate, including where it cannot grant effective relief. A federal prisoner need not exhaust the Bureau of Prisons' general grievance procedure before bringing a Bivens action solely for money damages when that procedure does not authorize monetary relief and imposes burdens that heavily risk forfeiture.

🔒

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.

Darren Cole, a federal inmate in Tucson, files a Bivens action in federal court against prison medical staff seeking only compensatory damages for a completed episode of unconstitutional medical neglect. The prison relies on an internal grievance system created by agency regulation, and no federal statute specifically requires exhaustion for this type of suit.

Should the court require Darren to exhaust before proceeding?

Explanation. The majority first asks whether Congress specifically required exhaustion. If Congress has not clearly done so, courts use sound judicial discretion consistent with congressional intent and the statutory scheme. In balancing interests, the Court held exhaustion should not be required for a federal prisoner's Bivens suit seeking only money damages where the agency procedure cannot award monetary relief.