LaQuan Stederick Johnson v. Elaine Terry, et al.

An individual may be entitled to pursue a Bivens remedy against a federal official who violated his constitutional rights, unless there are special factors indicating that such a remedy would interfere with the authority of other branches of government. Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 492 (2022). Where a prisoner has “full access to remedial mechanisms established by the [Bureau of Prisons], including suits in federal court for injunctive relief and grievances filed through the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program,” the special-factors test is satisfied, foreclosing a Bivens remedy. Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 74 (2001). But where a plaintiff “lack[s] any alternative remedy for harms caused by an individual officer’s unconstitutional conduct,” a Bivens remedy is appropriate. Id. at 70. Here, the Eleventh Circuit held that the mere existence of the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program satisfied the special-factors test, even though “plaintiff himself was denied access” to that program. App.37. The question presented is Does the existence of the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program foreclose a Bivens action where prison officials prevent the inmate from accessing that program, as the Eleventh Circuit held below, or does barring a prisoner from accessing that alternative remedy allow a prisoner to pursue a Bivens claim, as the Fourth Circuit held in Fields v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 109 F.4th 264 (4th Cir. 2024)?