Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1529.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

HUI v. CASTANEDA 

Opinion of the Court 

neda  v.  United  States,  538  F. Supp.  2d  1279,  1288–1295 
(2008).  Petitioners filed an interlocutory appeal.3 

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the 
District  Court’s  judgment  that  §233(a)  does  not  preclude 
respondents’  Bivens  claims.    Castaneda  v.  United  States, 
546  F. 3d  682  (2008).4  The  court  cited  Carlson  v.  Green, 
446  U. S.  14  (1980),  for  the  proposition  that  a  Bivens 
remedy is unavailable only when an alternative remedy is 
both  expressly  declared  to  be  a  substitute  and  can  be 
viewed  as  equally  effective,  or  when  special  factors  mili-
tate against direct recovery.  Looking to the statute’s text 
and history, the court noted that §233(a) does not mention
the  Constitution  or  recovery  thereunder  and  found  it 
significant  that  §233  was  enacted  prior  to  this  Court’s
decision  in  Bivens.  Drawing  further  support  for  its  view 
from the statute’s legislative history and from subsequent 
congressional enactments, the Court of Appeals concluded 
that  §233(a)  does  not  expressly  make  the  remedy  under
the FTCA a substitute for relief under Bivens. 

For  essentially  the  reasons  given  in  Carlson,  446  U. S., 
at  20–23,  the  Court  of  Appeals  also  determined  that  the 
FTCA remedy is not equally effective as a Bivens remedy.
Unlike the remedy under the FTCA, the court reasoned, a 
Bivens  remedy  is  awarded  against  individual  defendants
and  may  include  punitive  damages.  Additionally,  Bivens 
cases may be tried before a jury, and liability is governed 
by  uniform  federal  rules  rather  than  the  law  of  the  State 

—————— 

3 Although it does not bear directly on the question presented in this 
case,  we  note  that  while  petitioners’  appeal  was  pending  the  Govern-
ment  filed  a  formal  notice  admitting  liability  with  respect  to  respon-
dents’ claims for medical negligence under the FTCA.  App. 329. 

4 The  court  concluded  that  it  had  jurisdiction  over  the  interlocutory 
appeal because district court orders denying absolute immunity consti-
tute “final decisions” for purposes of 28 U. S. C. §1291.  See 546 F. 3d, 
at  687  (citing  Mitchell  v.  Forsyth,  472  U. S.  511,  524–527  (1985));  see 
also Osborn v. Haley, 549 U. S. 225, 238–239 (2007).