Threatt v. United States of America

Federal inmate Stacy Threatt filed a Bivens action alleging that a correctional officer at USP Leavenworth used excessive force during a cell transfer, slamming him against a wall and causing injuries in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the claim, ruling that it presented a new Bivens context and was barred under recent Supreme Court precedent. On March 29, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the excessive force claim arose in a new context and that special factors, including the availability of alternative remedies and separation of powers concerns, counseled against judicially extending the Bivens remedy to this setting.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal with prejudice, holding that Threatt's claim arose in a new Bivens context and that special factors precluded the recognition of a new damages remedy. The court declined to extend Bivens to an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against a federal correctional officer under the circumstances presented.

Whether Threatt's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim presented a new Bivens context and whether, under the Supreme Court's decision in Egbert v. Boule, the court should decline to extend an implied damages remedy against federal officers.

The ruling reinforced the post-Egbert judicial trend of severely restricting Bivens remedies, making it extraordinarily difficult for federal prisoners to obtain monetary relief for constitutional violations. It underscored the near-complete foreclosure of implied damages actions against federal officials, shifting the burden onto Congress to create statutory causes of action.