WASHINGTON, DC- The United States Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a Virginia prisoner who claimed he was physically abused while in solitary confinement cannot sue prison officers and officials, Courthouse News Service reports.
Andrew Fields claimed that officers abused him, then denied him access to forms to file a grievance through the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Administrative Remedy Program.
The high court’s decision reversed a Fourth Circuit order that allowed Fields to sue. Fields v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 109 F. 4th 264, 268
The Legal Information Institute reported that Fields sued the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the prison warden, and several prison officials in federal court, claiming that some prison officials had used excessive force against him, which allegedly violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed his complaint.
In denying Fields’ claim, the District Court determined Fields lacked a cause of action pursuant to a previous Supreme Court case. 403 U.S. 388 (1971) Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents
In that case, Bivens sued, claiming alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment.
The court did not address Bivens Eighth Amendment claims because they were not raised.
In the case of Fields, his attorneys attempted to use Bivens as a precedent basis for his excessive force claims under the Eighth Amendment, which was allowed by the Fourth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in a split decision, with the majority writing that no “special factors counseled against extending Bivens here. 109 F. 4th at 270
In his dissent, Judge Julius Richardson stated: “A faithful application of our precedent and the Supreme Court’s leads squarely to the conclusion that we cannot create a new Bivens action here. Id., at 283.
Prison officials appealed, and the Department of Justice enjoined as amicus curiae, joined the appeal, and the high court granted the petition for certiorari and reversed the Fourth Circuit.
As Courthouse News reported, the Supreme Court has denied expanding Bivens to cover other constitutional violations over ten times since 1970.
“For the past 45 years, this court has consistently declined to extend Bivens to new contexts,” the justices said in an unsigned opinion. “We do the same here.”
The high court believes the issue should be decided by Congress, noting that it has legislated extensively over prisoner litigation; however, it has not created a case for monetary damages.
They wrote that extending Bivens to allow a claim of excessive force could have negative consequences for officials undertaking the difficult job of running a prison.
They also noted that federal prisoners have alternatives for airing grievances, including through the administrative remedy program and by filing for injunctive relief in federal court.
The case has been remanded to the Fourth Circuit for further proceedings.
In granting Fields’ appeal, the Fourth Circuit majority wrote:
“Though this court has declined to extend Bivens to cases brought by federal inmates in the past, it has done so on the theory that inmates have access to alternative remedies. But that reasoning does not apply here–Fields lacked access to alternative remedies because prison officials deliberately thwarted his access to them.”
The high court last weighed in on Bivens in 2022, denying liability for federal officers over a retaliation claim.
Courthouse News noted that the case’s precedent has been watered down in recent years, with the most significant development being when a Mexican family was prevented from suing a Border Patrol agent who shot across the border and killed their 15-year-old son who was in Mexico at the time.
