Sargeant v. Barfield addresses whether an incarcerated person can sue a federal employee for First Amendment retaliation under Bivens. The plaintiff in this case was retaliated against for filing a grievance by an officer that was intentionally placing him in cells with people that had a known propensity for violence.
Our brief argues accountability in these cases will not chill law enforcement job performance.
Bivens remedy was available to federal prisoner who alleged that correctional officer labeled him a snitch to other prisoners, offered them a bounty to assault him, and failed to protect him from predictable assault by another prisoner; court reasons that “no special factors counsel hesitation” in making a “very modest expansion” of the Bivens remedy under the 8th Amendment recognized in Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980).
Declining to recognize Bivens cause of action against city police officer, who was a deputized federal agent, who provided allegedly false information to another officer in another municipal department, leading to plaintiffs’ arrest on federal charges, in order to protect a federal witness.
In Hernandez v. Mesa, the parents of 15-year-old Mexican national Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca sued US Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr. Mesa was standing on US soil and Guereca on Mexican soil when Mesa shot and killed Guereca. This brief argues that Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) provides a cause of action against immigration enforcement agents as it does for all other federal law enforcement agents.
In Egbert v. Boule the Court is deciding whether a Bivens action exists for First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment violations committed by federal officers carrying out immigration functions.