Defining New Bivens Contexts: Waltermeyer v. Hazlewood and the Limits of Eighth Amendment Damages Claims

Introduction

Waltermeyer v. Hazlewood, decided by the First Circuit on May 6, 2025, addresses whether a federal prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical treatment can proceed as a Bivens-type damages action when it differs in context from Carlson v. Green (1980). Broc Waltermeyer, an inmate at FCI Berlin, sued the prison physician and warden for denying him knee surgery and providing only conservative treatments. The district court dismissed his amended complaint for lack of a judicially implied cause of action, concluding that Waltermeyer’s claim arose in a “new context” and thus could not extend the precedent set by Carlson. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed, refining the “new context” analysis under Egbert v. Boule (2022) and Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017).

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that Waltermeyer’s Eighth Amendment damages claim is “meaningfully different” from the Bivens-type remedy recognized in Carlson. Key points of the decision include:

Comparator Case: Carlson remains the controlling precedent for Eighth Amendment medical-care claims against federal prison officials.
New Context Inquiry: Under Ziglar and Egbert, the Court asks whether the current claim is meaningfully different from Carlson and whether special factors counsel hesitation in extending Bivens.
Factual Distinctions: Unlike Carlson, Waltermeyer received timely diagnostic imaging, non-contraindicated treatments, regular injections, braces, medications and accommodations, and never alleged life-threatening delays or use of inoperative equipment.
Legal Conclusion: These differences sufficed to create a new context, barring a judicially implied damages remedy. The dismissal of Waltermeyer’s complaint was therefore affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980): Recognized an Eighth Amendment Bivens action where prison officials exhibited deliberate indifference to life-threatening asthma needs, administered contraindicated care, and delayed transfer, resulting in death.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971): Established a cause of action for damages under the Fourth Amendment against federal officers who conducted an unconstitutional search and seizure.
Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979): Extended Bivens to Fifth Amendment employment-related constitutional violations by a federal Congressman.
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017): Held that extending Bivens to new contexts is disfavored and set out factors to determine “meaningful” context differences.
Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022): Clarified that the two-step Ziglar framework often collapses into whether Congress is better suited than the judiciary to weigh costs and benefits of recognizing a damages action.
Hernández v. Mesa, 589 U.S. 93 (2020): Reaffirmed that post-Carlson Bivens expansions are disfavored and that courts should hesitate before creating new causes of action.
Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001): Refused to extend Carlson to claims against a private prison operator rather than an individual federal officer.

Legal Reasoning

The opinion, authored by Judge Lynch, applies the Supreme Court’s two-step framework:

New Context Analysis: Compare Waltermeyer’s factual allegations against those in Carlson. The Court found these material differences:
- Notice of Gross Inadequacy: Carlson alleged prison officials knew of grossly inadequate facilities; Waltermeyer’s complaint does not.
- Contraindicated Care: Carlson involved medical actions known to be harmful; here, every treatment was doctor-approved and conservative.
- Severity and Outcome: Carlson’s failure led to death; Waltermeyer’s knee pain, while serious, was managed with non-surgical alternatives.
- Timeliness: Waltermeyer received an MRI within months, regular injections, medications, braces and other accommodations—facts the Court deemed “meaningfully different.”
Special Factors and Separation of Powers: Although not fully briefed, the Court noted that healthcare decision-making for federal prisoners raises sensitive policy judgments—another reason to defer to Congress rather than expand Bivens.

In sum, the context here diverges sufficiently from Carlson that recognizing a new Bivens remedy would conflict with the Supreme Court’s caution against judicially creating damages actions in uncharted territory.

Impact

Waltermeyer v. Hazlewood reinforces the Supreme Court’s tightening of Bivens’ scope. Its key implications include:

Judicial Restraint: Lower courts will apply a rigorous “new context” test before implying constitutional damages remedies for federal officers.
Prisoner Litigation: Inmates seeking money damages for medical decisions will face high hurdles if their cases differ from Carlson in any material way, even if they allege serious pain or suboptimal care.
Congressional Prerogative: The decision underscores that creating new damages claims is primarily a legislative function, particularly in specialized areas like prison healthcare.
Circuit Uniformity: This ruling aligns the First Circuit with peers (Tenth, Seventh, Eighth) that have also declined to extend Carlson in factually distinct medical-care cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Bivens Claim: A judicially implied cause of action allowing an individual to seek money damages from federal officers for constitutional violations not explicitly provided by statute.
Carlson Framework: Recognizes an Eighth Amendment damages remedy when prison officials exhibit “deliberate indifference” to life-threatening medical needs.
“New Context” Inquiry: Under Ziglar and Egbert, courts ask whether a proposed Bivens extension is “meaningfully different” from Bivens, Davis or Carlson and whether special factors counsel hesitation.
Deliberate Indifference: A standard requiring that officials both know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.
Special Factors: Considerations—such as separation of powers, disruptive intrusion, or complex policy judgments—that advise against judicially creating a new remedy.

Conclusion

Waltermeyer v. Hazlewood reaffirms that courts must proceed with utmost caution before extending Bivens remedies beyond the confines of established precedents. By distinguishing Waltermeyer’s non-surgical, doctor-approved knee treatments from the fatal and contraindicated care in Carlson, the First Circuit concluded that no new context existed to warrant a damages claim under the Eighth Amendment. The decision highlights the judiciary’s deference to Congress in crafting remedies for constitutional violations in specialized domains such as federal prison healthcare, and it signals to future litigants that only claims closely mirroring the narrow trio of Bivens precedents will survive a motion to dismiss.