Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1529.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2009 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

HUI ET AL. v. CASTANEDA, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTA-

TIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CASTANEDA, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08–1529.  Argued March 2, 2010—Decided May 3, 2010 

While  detained  by  immigration  authorities,  Francisco  Castaneda  per-
sistently  sought  treatment  for  a  bleeding,  suppurating  lesion.  Al-
though a U. S. Public Health Service (PHS) physician’s assistant and 
three outside specialists repeatedly advised that Castaneda urgently 
needed  a  biopsy,  petitioners—a  PHS  physician  and  a  commissioned
PHS officer—denied the request.  After Castaneda was released from 
custody, tests confirmed that he had metastatic cancer.  He then filed 
this suit, raising medical negligence claims against the United States
under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U. S. C. §§1346, 2671–
2680,  and  constitutional  claims  against  petitioners  under  Bivens  v. 
Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 397.  When Cas-
taneda  died,  respondents,  his  representative  and  heir,  were  substi-
tuted  as  plaintiffs.    The  District  Court  denied  petitioners’  motion  to 
dismiss the Bivens action, rejecting their claim of absolute immunity
under  42  U. S. C.  §233(a),  which  provides:  “The  [FTCA]  remedy 
against  the  United  States  provided  by  [28  U. S. C.  §§1346(b)  and
2672] for damage for personal injury, including death, resulting from 
the performance of medical . . . or related functions . . . by any [PHS] 
commissioned officer or employee . . . while acting within the scope of
his office or employment, shall be exclusive of any other civil action or 
proceeding by reason of the same subject-matter against the officer or 
employee.”  (Emphasis added.)  The Ninth Circuit affirmed.   

Held: The  immunity  provided  by  §233(a)  precludes  Bivens  actions 
against individual PHS officers or employees for harms arising out of 
constitutional  violations  committed  while  acting  within  the  scope  of
their office or employment.  Pp. 5–13.

(a) The  Court’s  inquiry  begins  and  ends  with  §233(a)’s  text,  which