Carlson v. Green
Citation and Court
446 U.S. 14 (1980) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Marie Green’s son, a federal prisoner, died allegedly due to the deliberate indifference of federal prison officials to his serious medical needs. Green brought a Bivens action asserting an Eighth Amendment violation and also had a potential remedy under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The defendants argued that the FTCA displaced any Bivens remedy.
Issue
Whether a Bivens damages remedy is available to a prisoner’s estate for an Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment violation, notwithstanding the availability of a remedy under the FTCA.
Holding
Yes. A Bivens remedy is available for the Eighth Amendment claim; the FTCA does not displace the Bivens cause of action because Congress did not explicitly indicate that the FTCA remedy was intended to be a substitute, and the Bivens remedy is more effective in deterring constitutional violations by individual officers.
Rule / Doctrine
A Bivens remedy survives alongside the FTCA unless Congress has (1) explicitly provided an alternative remedy and (2) declared it a substitute for Bivens. Four factors favor the Bivens remedy over the FTCA: broader deterrence, availability of punitive damages, jury trial, and respondeat superior does not apply so individual liability is preserved.
Significance
Carlson is the third canonical Bivens case (after Bivens itself and Davis v. Passman), extending the remedy to the Eighth Amendment context and clarifying when the FTCA does not foreclose it. It represents the high-water mark of Bivens expansion before the Court began contracting the doctrine in Bush v. Lucas and later decisions.