Opinion ID: 2508223
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Bivens-type Claim

Text: A  Bivens claim is the cause of action sometimes permitted in federal courts for a governmental violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights. [22] We have never decided whether a Bivens -like remedy is available for violations of the Alaska Constitution. [23] In Brown v. Ely we noted that federal courts have not permitted the Bivens remedy if alternative remedies are available. [24] The McGrews' opportunities to participate as intervenors in the CINA proceeding and to oppose the adoption decree gave them adequate alternative avenues to challenge the litigation conduct of the governmental agency, DFYS. The alleged misconduct occurred during existing judicial proceedings, during which the McGrews had opportunities to seek prompt judicial relief that might have avoided or remedied any harm they allegedly suffered. The availability of judicial remedies in the very proceedings in which the misconduct allegedly took place distinguishes the McGrews' case from federal cases in which grave governmental misconduct has immediate consequences that cannot be readily avoided or corrected in existing judicial proceedings. [25] We see no reason why the McGrews should have an additional means of challenging, through a tort suit, the alleged unconstitutionality of that conduct. Furthermore, the McGrews' Bivens claims inherently allege misconduct by persons acting for the government. At least in context of this case, the theoretical availability of an IIED claim would be an alternative remedy that obviates any need for a Bivens claim. We therefore do not need to approve a Bivens remedy here.