Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 56.0

12 

ZIGLAR v. ABBASI 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

533  U. S.  678,  721  (2001)  (KENNEDY,  J.,  dissenting)  (de-
tention  “incident  to  removal  . . .  cannot  be  justified  as
punishment  nor  can  the  confinement  or  its  conditions  be
designed  in  order  to  punish”).  See  also  Bistrian  v.  Levi, 
696  F. 3d  352,  372  (CA3  2012)  (permitting  Bivens  action 
in  administrative  segregation); 
brought  by  detainee 
Thomas  v.  Ashcroft,  470  F. 3d  491,  493,  496–497  (CA2
2006) (detainee alleging failure to provide adequate medi-
cal care); Magluta v. Samples, 375 F. 3d 1269, 1271, 1275– 
1276 (CA11 2004) (detainee in solitary confinement); Papa 
v.  United  States,  281  F. 3d  1004,  1010–1011  (CA9  2002) 
(due  process  claims  arising  from  death  of  immigration
detainee);  Loe  v.  Armistead,  582  F. 2d  1291,  1293–1296 
(CA4  1978)  (detainee’s  claim  of  deliberate  indifference  to 
medical  need).  If  an  arrestee  can  bring  a  claim  of  exces-
sive  force  (Bivens  itself),  and  a  convicted  prisoner  can 
bring a claim for denying medical care (Carlson), someone 
who has neither been charged nor convicted  with a crime 
should also be able to challenge abuse that causes him to 
need medical care. 

Nor has Congress suggested that it wants to withdraw a
damages  remedy  in  circumstances  like  these.    By  its  ex-
press  terms,  the  Prison  Litigation  Reform  Act  of  1995 
(PLRA)  does  not  apply  to  immigration  detainees.    See  42 
U. S. C.  §1997e(h)  (“[T]he  term  ‘prisoner’  means  any  per-
son incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused 
of,  convicted  of,  sentenced  for,  or  adjudicated  delinquent 
for,  violations  of  criminal  law  . . .  ”);  see  also  Agyeman  v. 
INS,  296  F. 3d  871,  886  (CA9  2002)  (“[W]e  hold  that  an
alien  detained  by  the  INS  pending  deportation  is  not  a
‘prisoner’ within the meaning of the PLRA”); LaFontant v. 
INS, 135 F. 3d 158, 165 (CADC 1998) (same); Ojo v. INS, 
106 F. 3d 680, 683 (CA5 1997) (same).  And, in fact, there 
is  strong  evidence  that  Congress  assumed  that  Bivens 
remedies would be available to prisoners when it enacted 
the PLRA—e.g., Congress continued to permit prisoners to