Opinion ID: 76684
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Money Damages under Bivens

Text: 8 Hardison seeks damages from Cohen for his role in Hardison's allegedly wrongful discharge. In support of his claim against Cohen, Hardison argues that damages are available under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which provides a cause of action against a federal agent who, while acting under the color of federal law, has violated the constitutional rights of an individual. 403 U.S. 388, 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 2005, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1970). Bivens actions are brought directly under the Constitution, without a statute providing a right of action. Bivens involved alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment, but the Court has also allowed Bivens actions for violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979), and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980). 9 Damages can be obtained in a Bivens action when (1) the plaintiff has no alternative means of obtaining redress and (2) no special factors counseling hesitation are present. Stephens v. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 901 F.2d 1571, 1575-76 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 998, 111 S.Ct. 555, 112 L.Ed.2d 562 (1990). Those special factors include an appropriate judicial deference toward the will of Congress: When the design of a Government program suggests that Congress has provided what it considers adequate remedial mechanisms for constitutional violations that may occur in the course of its administration, we have not created additional Bivens remedies. Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 423, 108 S.Ct. 2460, 2468, 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988). 10 The Supreme Court has responded cautiously to suggestions that Bivens remedies be extended into new contexts. The absence of statutory relief for a constitutional violation, for example, does not by any means necessarily imply that courts should award money damages against the officers responsible for the violation. Chilicky, 487 U.S. at 421, 108 S.Ct. at 2467. In Bush v. Lucas, the Supreme Court refused to allow a federal employee to maintain, under the First Amendment, a Bivens action against the agency for which he worked. 462 U.S. 367, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983). The Court reasoned that, although the existing remedies d[id] not provide complete relief for the plaintiff, id. at 388, 103 S.Ct. at 2417, the statutory remedial scheme was clearly constitutionally adequate. Id. at 378 n. 14, 103 S.Ct. at 2412 n. 14. Because Congress [was] in a better position to decide whether or not the public interest would be served by a damages remedy, the Bush Court refused to supplement an elaborate remedial system that has been constructed step by step, with careful attention to conflicting policy considerations, ... [with] a new judicial remedy for the constitutional violation at issue. Id. at 388, 103 S.Ct. at 2416-17. 11 In Chilicky, the Supreme Court again refused to allow a Bivens action for damages to supplement a statutory remedial scheme that did not provide full compensation to injured parties. 487 U.S. at 428-29, 108 S.Ct. at 2470. The Chilicky plaintiffs, whose Social Security disability benefits were wrongfully terminated, filed suit for damages under Bivens on the ground that they had been denied due process under the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs simultaneously pursued administrative remedies for recipients of Social Security benefits, with some success: all of the plaintiffs obtained reinstatement to the program; two obtained full retroactive benefits; and another obtained partial retroactive benefits. Id. at 417, 108 S.Ct. at 2464-65. Although the plaintiffs could not be fully remedied by the `belated restoration of back benefits[,]' the Court held that Congress is the body charged with making the inevitable compromises in fashioning remedies for injuries relating to massive and complex government programs. Id. at 429, 108 S.Ct. at 2470. The Court declined to allow the plaintiffs to maintain a Bivens action for damages, because the Court found no legal basis that would allow a judicially created remedy to supplement the administrative remedy provided by Congress. Id. at 429, 108 S.Ct. at 2471. 12 In the same term that it decided Chilicky, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Fausto, held that a civil servant excluded from judicial review of a personnel action, under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), could not obtain relief under the Back Pay Act. 484 U.S. 439, 455, 108 S.Ct. 668, 677, 98 L.Ed.2d 830 (1988). The Court explained that [t]he CSRA established a comprehensive system for reviewing personnel action taken against federal employees. Id. The Court reasoned that the exclusion of the plaintiff from the class of employees entitled to judicial review, under the CSRA, revealed a considered congressional judgment that the plaintiff was not entitled to any judicial relief. Id. at 448, 108 S.Ct. at 674. 13 Following Bush, Chilicky, and Fausto, this Court, in Lee v. Hughes, refused to allow a terminated employee to maintain a Bivens claim for damages against a federal agency. 145 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir.1998). In Lee, a former probation officer sued his supervisors and alleged that his discharge was racially motivated. Id. at 1273. The officer was excluded from the administrative and judicial review provided by the CSRA, and, therefore, had no statutory remedy for his discharge. Id. at 1274. The Lee Court held that the officer could not bring, under the Fifth Amendment, a Bivens action for damages because his exclusion from the remedies of the CSRA was a special factor counseling hesitation, which reflected an intent of Congress to afford him no legal relief. Id. at 1277. The Lee Court reasoned that, under this country's long-respected separation of powers doctrine, courts should be hesitant to provide an aggrieved plaintiff with a remedy where Congress intentionally has withheld one. Id. 14 Based on our precedent in Lee, Hardison's claim for money damages fails. Hardison was excluded, under Title 38, from the remedial processes afforded to permanent VA employees. Sections 7461 to 7464 of Title 38 establish the disciplinary and grievance procedures that apply to section 7401(1) employees, the definition of which excludes interns and residents appointed pursuant to section 7406. 38 U.S.C. § 7461(c)(1). Medical residents appointed under section 7406 are not entitled to any of the remedies afforded to permanent, full-time VA medical professionals. 15 It would thwart the will of Congress to allow Hardison, who is excluded from the remedies of Title 38, to bring a Bivens action for damages, when permanent VA physicians, who are provided limited remedies in Title 38, are not allowed, under Bush, Chilicky, and Lee, to bring a Bivens action. Cf. Berry v. Hollander, 925 F.2d 311 (9th Cir.1991); Maxey v. Kadrovach, 890 F.2d 73 (8th Cir.1989); Heaney v. U.S. Veterans Admin., 756 F.2d 1215 (5th Cir. 1985). The Tenth Circuit, in examining the statutory predecessor to section 7461, explained that Congress intended to provide a summary process by which unqualified physicians previously protected by civil service could be expeditiously separated from service. Franks v. Nimmo, 796 F.2d 1230, 1240 (10th Cir.1986). Allowing Hardison to seek damages under Bivens would undermine that policy, as it would give greater rights to residents than to permanent VA physicians. The district court, therefore, properly dismissed Hardison's complaint for money damages.