1The Honorable Cynthia Holcomb Hall, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth

Circuit, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1079

___________

Willis Sisley, Mail Carrier Employed *

at Iowa City, Iowa, Post Office, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Rick Leyendecker, Supervisor at *

Iowa City, Iowa, Post Office, *

and John Becker, Supervisor at *

Iowa City, Iowa, Post Office, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 13, 2001

Filed: August 9, 2001 

___________

Before LOKEN, HALL,1 and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Willis Sisley worked as a mail carrier for the United States Postal Service for

more than thirteen years before he resigned due to his continuing conflict with his
2The Honorable Celeste F. Bremer, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa, sitting by consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); see

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(a).

-2-

supervisors. After his resignation, Mr. Sisley brought a so-called Bivens action against

his former supervisors, see Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court2 dismissed Mr. Sisley's complaint,

ruling that he had no Bivens action because he was covered by the Postal

Reorganization Act, see 39 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq. Mr. Sisley appealed, and we affirm

the judgment of the district court.

Mr. Sisley contends that he should be allowed to sue his former supervisors

under Bivens because they retaliated against him after he sought to exercise rights

secured to him under a collective bargaining agreement. Because the defendants

continually harassed him at work, Mr. Sisley claims that he was eventually forced to

leave his job to avoid the unrelenting psychological torment, and was thus deprived of

his Fifth Amendment right to the property interest in his position. He also claims that

the defendants deprived him of his First Amendment rights.

We review the district court's decision to grant the motion to dismiss de novo.

See Young v. City of St. Charles, Mo., 244 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir. 2001). In

determining whether the district court properly granted the motion, we must accept all

of the allegations set forth in Mr. Sisley's complaint as true, and we will affirm only if

it appears beyond doubt that he cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim

which would entitle him to relief. See Carpenter Outdoor Adver. Co. v. City of

Fenton, 251 F.3d 686, 688 (8th Cir. 2001).

Although Bivens permits lawsuits against federal officials for money damages

arising from constitutional violations, the Supreme Court indicated that no Bivens

action will lie where Congress has provided an alternative remedial system. See
-3-

Bivens, 403 U.S. at 396-97. The Court has given effect to this principle at least twice.

In Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 385-390 & 386 n.30 (1983), the Court rejected a claim

for damages brought by an engineer employed by the federal government because he

was already protected by procedural and substantive rights provided to him by federal

statutes, executive orders, and regulations in effect at the time. The Court reasoned that

where Congress has set up "an elaborate remedial system ... with careful attention to

conflicting policy considerations ... a new judicial remedy for [a] constitutional

violation" ought not be created. Id. at 388.

Similarly, in Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 420, 424-29 (1988), the

Supreme Court rejected a Bivens claim for the wrongful denial of Social Security

benefits because there was already a significant administrative structure and process

in place to regulate the system and vindicate the rights that it established. In

Schweiker, 487 U.S. at 423, the Court, citing its prior decisions including Bush,

observed that "[w]hen the design of a Government program suggests that Congress has

provided what it considers adequate remedial mechanisms for constitutional violations

that may occur in the course of its administration," the Court has refused to create

"additional Bivens remedies." 

In light of Bush and Schweiker, we do not think that Mr. Sisley can have a

Bivens claim against his former supervisors. As a mail carrier, Mr. Sisley possessed

rights and had access to grievance procedures provided by the Postal Reorganization

Act, see, e.g., 39 U.S.C. § 1001(b) (guaranteeing Postal Service employees right to

"fair hearing on adverse actions"), and by the collective bargaining agreement between

his union and the Postal Service, see 39 U.S.C. § 1203 (recognizing Postal Service

employees' collective bargaining rights). He does not deny this and indeed he admits

that he has enjoyed some past successes in dealing with his supervisors by filing

grievances through his union. Because Mr. Sisley had an extensive array of statutorilycreated rights and procedures provided to him by Congress, we hold that he is

precluded from seeking relief outside of that system. See Bradley v. United States
-4-

Postal Service, 832 F.2d 1061, 1062 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam); see also Bennett v.

Barnett, 210 F.3d 272, 275-76 (5th Cir. 2000); Roman v. United States Postal Service,

821 F.2d 382, 386 (7th Cir. 1987).

Mr. Sisley maintains that this lawsuit is his only recourse against the wrongful

conduct of his supervisors because they always harassed and retaliated against him

whenever he sought to exercise his rights. We do not think, however, that he would

have a Bivens claim even if these allegations are true. As we have repeatedly

recognized, a Bivens claim may be precluded in circumstances where the remedies

provided by Congress do not afford relief for the injury asserted. See Carpenter's

Produce v. Arnold, 189 F.3d 686, 689 (8th Cir. 1999); Krueger v. Lyng, 927 F.2d

1050, 1053-54 (8th Cir. 1991). Congress could have provided a remedy for

Mr. Sisley's harassment claim if it had wanted to, but it did not. We note furthermore

that there is no evidence that the procedures available to Mr. Sisley would have proved

inadequate in any event, because he did not attempt to file any grievances to stop the

alleged harassment by the defendants. Mr. Sisley thus failed to state a claim under

Bivens.

For the reasons indicated, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.