Steve Marquez v. C. Rodriguez

Summary

The Ninth Circuit declined to extend a *Bivens* remedy to a Fifth Amendment failure-to-protect claim brought by a federal pretrial detainee, holding that the claim presented a new *Bivens* context meaningfully different from the three recognized *Bivens* cases (*Bivens*, *Davis*, and *Carlson*) and that *Farmer v. Brennan* did not establish a cognizable *Bivens* context. The court further held that special factors—including the availability of alternative administrative remedies through the Bureau of Prisons and separation-of-powers principles—counseled against judicial extension of an implied damages action. The decision reversed the district court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, emphasizing that Congress is better suited than the judiciary to weigh the costs and benefits of creating a damages remedy for federal prisoners alleging deliberate indifference to safety.

Holdings

1. A Fifth Amendment failure-to-protect claim is not cognizable under Bivens because it presents a new Bivens context and special factors counsel against extending Bivens.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a pretrial detainee can bring a Fifth Amendment failure-to-protect claim under Bivens against federal correctional officers.

Disposition

reversed