Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied Defendant Shane Brown’s motion to dismiss a Bivens excessive-force claim arising from a federal and state law enforcement operation. The court held that the plaintiff’s claim fell within the existing Bivens context involving Fourth Amendment excessive force, despite Brown’s service as a deputized United States Marshals Service task force officer. The court declined to assess alternative remedies as special factors because it found no new Bivens context, lifted the discovery stay, and directed that a scheduling conference be set.
Holdings
- The alleged Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim did not arise in a new Bivens context. The involvement of the USMS, Brown's status as a specially deputized task-force officer, the joint federal-state nature of the operation, and the use of an arrest warrant did not meaningfully distinguish the claim from the core Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim recognized in Bivens.
- Because the claim arose in an existing Bivens context, the court did not need to reach the second step of the Bivens inquiry or evaluate whether alternative remedies and federal-state task-force concerns counseled hesitation.
- The complaint plausibly stated a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim and could proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage.
Questions Presented
- Whether Payne's Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against a specially deputized USMS task-force officer arises in a new Bivens context because the officer served with the USMS, participated in a joint federal-state task force, and acted pursuant to a warrant.
- If the claim arose in a new Bivens context, whether special factors, including alternative Department of Justice remedies and potential effects on federal-state law-enforcement relationships, would counsel against recognizing a damages remedy.
- Whether the complaint plausibly stated a Bivens claim sufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (32)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)(followed)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979)(followed)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980)(followed)
- District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418 (1973)(followed)
- Askew v. Bloemker, 548 F.2d 673 (7th Cir. 1976)(followed)
- Hammack v. Schneider, No. 19-00230, 2023 WL 143312 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2023)(followed)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946)(followed)
- Snowden v. Henning, 72 F.4th 237 (7th Cir. 2023)(followed)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017)(followed)
- Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 32.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.