You represent Jane Smith, whose federal constitutional rights were violated by federal government officers. You assume she may assert a claim for monetary relief against the officers. Your assumption is likely incorrect. Under existing U.S. Supreme Court decisional law, the likelihood is great that Smith does not have a right to sue the federal officers for damages. This column focuses on how the law has reached this unfortunate state of affairs.

In its most recent decision on the issue, the Supreme Court in Minneci v. Pollard1 held that a federal prisoner could not assert a claim for damages for deprivations of his constitutional rights against employees of a company operating a federal prison. The prisoner claimed that the employees’ deprivation of his right to adequate medical care violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. He sought relief under the Bivens2 doctrine, which authorizes the assertion of a claim for damages for constitutional violations against federal officials directly under the Constitution. The court, however, found that the existence of adequate state tort remedies justified rejection of plaintiff’s attempt to imply an Eighth Amendment damages remedy under the Bivens doctrine.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]