Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

25 

Opinion of the Court 

judicial  precedents  provide  a  less  meaningful  guide  for 
official  conduct;  or  if  there  are  potential  special  factors
that  were  not  considered  in  previous  Bivens  cases.  See 
supra, at 13. 

The  constitutional  right  is  different  here,  since  Carlson 
was  predicated  on  the  Eighth  Amendment  and  this  claim 
is predicated on the Fifth.  See 446 U. S., at 16.  And the 
judicial guidance available to this warden, with respect to
his supervisory duties, was less developed.  The Court has 
long made clear the standard for claims alleging failure to 
provide  medical  treatment  to  a  prisoner—“deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs.”  Estelle v. Gamble, 
429 U. S. 97, 104 (1976).  The standard for a claim alleging 
that a warden allowed guards to abuse pre-trial detainees 
is less clear under the Court’s precedents. 

This case also has certain features that were not consid-
ered  in  the  Court’s  previous  Bivens  cases  and  that  might
discourage a court from authorizing a Bivens remedy.  As 
noted above, the existence of alternative remedies usually 
precludes  a  court  from  authorizing  a  Bivens  action.  Su-
pra, at 14.   And  there  might have been alternative reme-
dies  available  here,  for  example,  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus, 
Wolfish, 441 U. S., at 526, n. 6; an injunction requiring the 
warden to bring his prison into compliance with the regu-
lations  discussed  above;  or  some  other  form  of  equitable 
relief. 

Furthermore,  legislative  action  suggesting  that  Con-
gress  does  not  want  a  damages  remedy  is  itself  a  factor 
counseling  hesitation.  See  supra,  at  14.  Some  15  years 
after  Carlson  was  decided,  Congress  passed  the  Prison
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which made comprehensive 
changes to the way prisoner abuse claims must be brought 
in federal court.  See 42 U. S. C. §1997e.  So it seems clear 
that Congress had specific occasion to consider the matter 
of  prisoner  abuse  and  to  consider  the  proper  way  to  rem-
edy  those  wrongs.  This  Court  has  said  in  dicta  that  the