Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1529.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

Cite as:  559 U. S. ____ (2010) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

from custody on February 5.  A week later, biopsy results 
confirmed  that  Castaneda  was  suffering  from  penile  can-
cer.  The  next  day,  Castaneda  had  his  penis  amputated, 
and he began chemotherapy after tests confirmed that the
cancer had metastasized to his groin.  The treatment was 
unsuccessful, and Castaneda died in February 2008. 

Three  months  before  his  death,  Castaneda  filed  suit 
against petitioners in the United States District Court for 
the Central District of California.  As relevant, Castaneda 
raised  medical  negligence  claims  against  the  United
States  under  the  FTCA  and  Bivens  claims  against  peti-
tioners  for  deliberate  indifference  to  his  serious  medical 
needs  in  violation  of  his  Fifth,  Eighth,  and  Fourteenth
Amendment  rights.2  After  Castaneda’s  death,  respon-
dents—Castaneda’s  sister,  Yanira  Castaneda,  and  his 
daughter,  Vanessa  Castaneda  (by  and  through  her 
mother,  Lucia  Pelayo)—amended  the  complaint  to  substi-
tute themselves as plaintiffs.  Yanira and Vanessa Casta-
neda  are  respectively  the  representative  of  and  heir  to
Castaneda’s estate. 

Petitioners  moved  to  dismiss  the  claims  against  them,
contending  that  §233(a)  gives  them  absolute  immunity 
from  Bivens  actions  by  making  a  suit  against  the  United
States  under  the  FTCA  the  exclusive  remedy  for  harms 
caused by PHS personnel in the course of their medical or 
related  duties.    The  District  Court  denied  the  motion, 
concluding  that  §233(a)’s  text  and  history  evidence  a 
congressional  intent  to  preserve  Bivens  actions.    Casta-

—————— 

2 In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 397 
(1971),  this  Court  recognized  an  implied  cause  of  action  for  damages
against federal officers alleged to have violated the petitioner’s Fourth 
Amendment  rights.  We  subsequently  found  such  a  remedy  available 
for  violations  of  an  individual’s  rights  under  the  Cruel  and  Unusual 
Punishments  Clause  of  the  Eighth  Amendment  and  the  Due  Process 
Clause.  See  Carlson  v.  Green,  446  U. S.  14,  17–19  (1980);  Davis  v. 
Passman, 442 U. S. 228, 230 (1979).