The Bivens decision [Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
Further, in the words of the
1. "Unreasonable search
and seizure by federal officials in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Bivens,
403
2. "Gender-based employment discrimination by a United States Congressman in violation of the Fifth Amendment, Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979); and
3. "Federal prison officials’ deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980)".
Further, said the Second
Circuit, since the Carlson decision, supra,
was handed down, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to
extend Bivens, warning that “recognizing a cause of action under Bivens is ‘a
disfavored judicial activity’”
In the instant litigation a federal District Court concluded that the Plaintiff could seek a Bivens remedy for his "failure-to-protect claim" and that the employee [Defendant] was not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of litigation.
On de novo review, the
The Circuit Court then reversed the federal District Court's decision and remanded the case "with instructions to dismiss the complaint."
Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's decision posted on the Internet.