Summary
This district court order screens a pro se federal prisoner’s amended Bivens complaint alleging excessive force by a correctional officer under the Eighth Amendment. The court finds that the claim presents a new Bivens context barred by special factors favoring congressional resolution through the prison grievance system, and further concludes the plaintiff fails to allege malicious or sadistic force required for an Eighth Amendment violation. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice, granting the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint by July 1, 2025, subject to payment of filing fees or in forma pauperis status.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff’s amended complaint states a cognizable Bivens claim for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment
- Whether Bivens can be extended to an excessive‑force claim against a prison correctional officer
Holdings
- The complaint is dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to allege the requisite malicious or sadistic intent and because the Supreme Court has declined to extend Bivens to excessive‑force claims against prison officials.
Key quotations
“The court must screen Plaintiff’s complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring a district court to screen a complaint in “a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity” and dismiss the complaint if it “is frivolous, malicious, [] fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[,]” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief”).” (at 1)
“The Supreme Court “has made clear that expanding the Bivens remedy is now a ‘disfavored’ judicial activity.” Ziglar, 582 U.S. at 135 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009)).” (at 3)
Factual background
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, alleges that Officer Gene King kicked his foot during a pat‑down, causing bruising and swelling, but provides no facts showing malicious or sadistic intent.
Procedural history
Plaintiff, a pro se federal prisoner, filed an amended complaint alleging excessive force under Bivens. The district court screened the complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim and because Bivens has not been extended to such claims.
Remand instructions
Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint on the standard civil‑rights complaint form on or before July 1, 2025. The new complaint must be rewritten in its entirety on the form and must not refer to or incorporate the dismissed amended complaint.