Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 31

26 

ZIGLAR v. ABBASI 

Opinion of the Court 

Act’s  exhaustion  provisions  would  apply  to  Bivens  suits. 
See  Porter  v.  Nussle,  534  U. S.  516,  524  (2002).    But  the 
Act itself does not provide for a standalone damages rem-
edy  against  federal  jailers.  It  could  be  argued  that  this
suggests  Congress  chose  not  to  extend  the  Carlson  dam- 
ages  remedy  to  cases  involving  other  types  of  prisoner 
mistreatment. 

The differences between this claim and the one in Carl-
son  are  perhaps  small,  at  least  in  practical  terms.    Given 
this Court’s expressed caution about extending the Bivens 
remedy,  however,  the  new-context  inquiry  is  easily  satis-
fied.  Some  differences,  of  course,  will  be  so  trivial  that 
they  will  not  suffice  to  create  a  new  Bivens  context.  But 
here the differences identified above are at the very least 
meaningful  ones.  Thus,  before  allowing  this  claim  to 
proceed  under  Bivens,  the  Court  of  Appeals  should  have 
performed a special factors analysis.  It should have ana-
lyzed  whether  there  were  alternative  remedies  available
or other “sound reasons to think Congress might doubt the
efficacy  or  necessity  of  a  damages  remedy”  in  a  suit  like 
this one.  Supra, at 15. 

B 

Although  the  Court  could  perform  that  analysis  in  the 
first  instance,  the  briefs  have  concentrated  almost  all  of 
their  efforts  elsewhere.  Given  the  absence  of  a  compre-
hensive presentation by the parties, and the fact that the
Court  of  Appeals  did  not  conduct  the  analysis,  the  Court 
declines to perform the special factors analysis itself.  The 
better course is to vacate the judgment below, allowing the
Court of Appeals or the District Court to do so on remand. 

V 

One  issue  remains  to  be  addressed:  the  claim  that 
petitioners  are  subject  to  liability  for  civil  conspiracy
under  42  U. S. C.  §1985(3).    Unlike  the  prisoner  abuse
claim just discussed, this claim implicates the activities of