“Fields v. BOP”: The Third Circuit’s Definitive Rejection of New Bivens Remedies for Federal-Prisoner Claims

Introduction

Andrew Fields, a federal inmate, sued multiple prison officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, alleging severe mistreatment at USP Canaan. After the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered summary judgment against him for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Third Circuit affirmed—yet on different grounds. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent retrenchment of Bivens, the panel held that none of Fields’s constitutional allegations—First, Fifth, or Eighth Amendment—may proceed as a damages action against individual federal officers.

Although designated “Not Precedential,” the opinion powerfully cements the post-Egbert v. Boule landscape: expanding Bivens is virtually foreclosed, and federal prisoners must look elsewhere (e.g., FTCA, injunctive relief, parole boards, or internal grievance procedures) for redress.

Summary of the Judgment

The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment, but sidestepped exhaustion questions, invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2) to dismiss on the merits.
The panel found all of Fields’s claims—First Amendment retaliation and access-to-courts, Fifth Amendment discrimination and property deprivation, and Eighth Amendment excessive force and conditions—presented “new Bivens contexts.”
Applying Egbert and Ziglar v. Abbasi, the Court identified multiple “special factors” that counseled hesitation, and therefore declined to recognize any damages remedy.
Fields’s parallel theories under the Federal Tort Claims Act were deemed forfeited; equitable relief (release from custody) was also unavailable in a civil-rights action.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971) – Found a damages remedy under the Fourth Amendment for a warrantless home search; origin of “Bivens actions.”
Davis v. Passman (1979) – Extended Bivens to Fifth Amendment sex-discrimination claims by a congressional staffer.
Carlson v. Green (1980) – Allowed Eighth Amendment medical-care claims by prisoners.
Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017) – Declared further expansion of Bivens “disfavored,” introduced the “new context/special factors” test.
Egbert v. Boule (2022) – Simplified the test: any difference from the original three cases creates a “new context,” and any special factor bars relief.
Goldey v. Fields (U.S. 2025) – Per curiam Supreme Court opinion declining to recognize an Eighth Amendment excessive-force Bivens claim; cited as controlling authority.
Third Circuit cases:
- Fisher v. Hollingsworth (2024) – No Bivens for failure-to-protect claims.
- Xi v. Haugen (2023) – No Bivens for racial discrimination under the Fifth Amendment.
- Kalu v. Spaulding (2024) – No Bivens for conditions-of-confinement claims.

These authorities collectively demonstrate a consistent refusal—by both the Supreme Court and the Third Circuit—to create new implied damages actions. The Fields panel harmonized its outcome with this unbroken line, accentuating the futility of prisoners’ attempts to shoehorn novel constitutional theories into Bivens.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

New Context Inquiry. Each of Fields’s theories differed from the three “core” Bivens precedents in:
- Amendment invoked (First and parts of Fifth/Eighth vs. Fourth/Fifth/Eighth medical).
- Nature of the defendant (prison officials vs. narcotics agents, congressman, or BOP medical staff).
- Type of injury (retaliation, conditions, force, property loss) vs. home search, employment discrimination, or denied medical care.
Special Factors. The Court identified at least four:
- Congressional action: The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and FTCA show Congress’s chosen remedial framework, yet omit a damages remedy against individual officers.
- Separation of powers concerns: Crafting new liability rules for prison administration risks judicial micromanagement.
- Alternative processes: Internal BOP grievance system—even if imperfect—provides an avenue for complaints.
- Systemic burden: Recognizing claims like excessive force or retaliation could unleash wide-ranging litigation, diverting resources and chilling prison discipline.
Under Egbert, a single factor suffices; the presence of multiple factors made extension “categorically unwarranted.”
Exhaustion Issue Rendered Moot. Section 1997e(c)(2) permits courts to dismiss claims on the merits “notwithstanding” lack of exhaustion, allowing the panel to affirm on the broader doctrinal ground.

3. Likely Impact on Future Litigation

Virtual Closure of the Bivens Door – Prisoner-plaintiff counsel should now assume Bivens to be available only for the Carlson-type medical-care scenario—and even that could be revisited by the Supreme Court.
Strategic Re-channeling – Expect increased reliance on:
- Federal Tort Claims Act (negligence or intentional-tort avenues).
- Injunctive or declaratory relief under § 1331 or habeas corpus (§ 2241) for ongoing unconstitutional conditions.
- State-law remedies (where parallel state actors are involved) or constitutional tort suits in state courts.
Administrative Focus – Prison administrations may leverage the decision to support strict grievance protocols, knowing that failure to exhaust no longer prevents immediate dismissal when new-context claims are alleged.
Legislative Pressure – The cumulative effect of Egbert and Fields could spur congressional proposals for statutory prisoner damages remedies, akin to § 1983 for state actors.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Bivens Remedy: An implied (judge-made) right to collect money damages from federal officials who violate certain constitutional rights.
New Bivens Context: Any case that differs in a meaningful way—facts, defendant type, constitutional provision, or mechanism of injury—from the original three Supreme Court Bivens precedents (home search, sex discrimination, lack of medical care).
Special Factors Counseling Hesitation: Policy reasons, rooted in separation of powers, that courts consider before creating new tort remedies—e.g., existing statutes, national security, prison administration.
Section 1997e(c)(2): A PLRA provision allowing dismissal of prisoner suits “for failure to state a claim” even when administrative remedies have not been exhausted.

Conclusion

Fields v. BOP adds another authoritative link in the judicial chain effectively closing the door on almost all new Bivens actions. By elevating the Supreme Court’s recent cautions into a bright-line refusal, the Third Circuit crystallizes a post-Egbert reality: only Congress can create new damages remedies against federal officers. For practitioners, the decision redirects strategy toward statutory or equitable avenues, while for scholars, it marks a decisive chapter in the retrenchment of implied constitutional torts. In the broader legal landscape, Fields stands as a stark reminder that judicial minimalism in the realm of federal prisoners’ rights is now the norm, not the exception.