Supreme Court rules prison inmate cannot sue federal officers for alleged assault

[Polybius]

Source: NBC News

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a federal prison inmate cannot sue corrections officers for an alleged assault in which he was punched, kicked and had his face slammed into a wall.

The loss for inmate Andrew Fields is the latest setback for plaintiffs seeking to hold federal officials accountable for constitutional violations.

Although the Supreme Court allowed such claims in a 1971 ruling called Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, it has since changed course and made it almost impossible to do so in most situations.

The unsigned ruling, which had no dissents, said that if Fields' claim was allowed to move forward, it "could have negative systemic consequences for prison officials." Fields has other ways of vindicating his rights, the court added.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-prison-inmate-cannot-sue-federal-officers-alleged-rcna213333

---

No dissents...

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Soon there will be no civil rights left.

[Demovictory9]

2. Kick

[Silent Type]

3. Supreme Court has upheld/allowed Bivens claims only 3 times, even when the Court was somewhat liberal, unlike today.

The Supreme Court has upheld Bivens claims only three times: in Bivens (1971), Davis v. Passman (1979), and Carlson v. Green (1980). Under Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017) and Egbert v. Boule (2022), any claim that is not highly similar to the facts in Bivens (excessive force during arrest), Davis (sex discrimination in federal employment), or Carlson (inadequate care in prison) is a "new context" to which Bivens will not be extended if "there is any reason to think that Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy." -- Wikipedia.

"The judicially created Bivens cause of action functions as the counterpart to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, allowing suits for damages against federal officers for past constitutional violations. The Supreme Court has allowed three Bivens claims to proceed — a Fourth Amendment claim against law enforcement, a Fifth Amendment due-process employment-discrimination claim, and an Eighth Amendment claim involving medical care in prison. But the court has described Bivens actions as “disfavored judicial activity,” rejecting recent claims in Ziglar v. Abbasi against high-level executive officials enacting post-9/11 national-security policy and in Hernandez v. Mesa against a Border Patrol agent over a cross-border shooting of a Mexican national.

"Recent cases establish a two-step inquiry. First, the court asks whether the case involves an “extension” of Bivens into a “new context” that is “different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by this Court,” even if that extension is modest. If the case extends Bivens into a new context, the court considers “special factors that counsel hesitation about granting the extension.” Central to this analysis is the presumption that Congress, not the courts, should decide whether a cause of action should be available against federal officers or on a set of facts."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/03/border-agents-the-first-amendment-and-the-continued-vitality-of-bivens/#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20allowed%20three%20Bivens,Amendment%20claim%20involving%20medical%20care%20in%20prison.

[onenote]

8. Pretty sure your well-researched explanation will fall on deaf ears here.

The fact there were no dissents to the per curiam decision supports your post.

[moniss]

4. This is how guards get away with brutalizing inmates

of all ages. The juvenile facilities in Wisconsin are a nightmare and I'm sure it's worse in Texas. In fact years ago we were sending overflow prisoners to Texas on a contract and we had to end it because of the brutal treatment.

[GiqueCee]

5. The Roberts Court...

... is an obscene travesty. The Sinister Six don't give a flying fuck people who are abused by a grotesquely corrupt system. Set them adrift with no oars and let 'em eat each other.

[onenote]

9. They were joined by the three Democrats in making this decision.

No dissents.

[GiqueCee]

10. I know...

... but I wondered, did they sign on to the decision, or just not write a formal dissent? I don't know enough about the inner workings of that crew. I would hate to think that the Liberal Justices would endorse such a decision, though Kagan has joined the Dark Side a few too many times for my comfort.
I know the Sinister Six are so insular that they truly have no idea, nor do they care, how their decisions affect people. Roberts especially has no inkling as to why most of the nation doesn't trust him any further than they can throw a dump truck. I don't suppose that the Liberals are completely immune to that insularity.

[onenote]

11. A per curiam decision with no dissents is a unanimous decision.

[GiqueCee]

12. Shit...

... I was afraid of that.

[pecosbob]

6. Prisoner rights would interfere with their plans to incarcerate the urban population on rural prison work farms.

[JoseBalow]

7. Giving hacks permission to abuse inmates