Joseph Randolph Mays v. T. B. Smith, Warden, et al.

In Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) and Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), this Court made clear that claims for gender discrimination and claims by federal inmate prisoners against prison officials are cognizable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). However, recent Supreme Court decisions in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017) and Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022) have created confusion in the lower courts as to whether the original cases finding valid Bivens claims retain vitality in light of these recent decisions. This case involves a run-of-the mill race discrimination employment claim by a federal inmate prisoner against prison officials, yet the courts below found that this case presented a new, impermissible context under Bivens. Petitioner was a federal inmate prisoner who worked a factory job at the federal institution where he was imprisoned. He was discriminated against on the basis of his race during the commission of his job, and was also fired from that job on the basis of his race. The question presented is: May a prisoner bring a suit for damages under Bivens based on claims of racial discrimination, or have Abbasi and Egbert eliminated Bivens claims for all actions except those that are factually identical to Bivens, Davis, or Carlson?