Replies

To any and all who may want to know just what a Bivens lawsuit is; here's a short Syllabus of the Bivens (Lawsuit / Action)

The reason Bivens (Lawsuit / Action) was an important decision, is before the Bivens decision, almost all federal courts would grant 12(b)6, Motion(s) to Dismiss (your case) "FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED." Put in layperson terms, Yes you were injured (not physically injured, but through some Constitutional depredation) but because the government official has "Qualified Immunity," there is no remedy to make you whole.

Bivens and some other (well known) lawsuits changed the "Qualified Immunity," landscape so to speak. Still a BIG HURDLE 12(b)6, Motion(s) to Dismiss to over come, i.e., make some type of mistake in your Pleadings and the judge will grant the 12(b)6, Motion(s) to Dismiss. You get just ONE BITE @ the apple, make a boo-boo, your toast, can you say Motion Granted (to dismiss).

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/388/case.html

U.S. Supreme Court Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics No. 301

Argued January 12, 1971

Decided June 21, 1971

403 U.S. 388

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED SATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Petitioner's complaint alleged that respondent agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, acting under color of federal authority, made a warrantless entry of his apartment, searched the apartment, and arrested him on narcotics charges. All of the acts were alleged to have been done without probable cause. Petitioner's suit to recover damages from the agents was dismissed by the District Court on the alternative grounds (1) that it failed to state a federal cause of action and (2) that respondents were immune from suit by virtue of their official position. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the first ground alone.

Held:

1. Petitioner's complaint states a federal cause of action under the Fourth Amendment for which damages are recoverable upon proof of injuries resulting from the federal agents' violation of that Amendment. Pp. 403 U. S. 390-397.

2. The Court does not reach the immunity question, which was not passed on by the Court of Appeals. Pp. 403 U. S. 397-398.

409 F.2d 718, reversed and remanded.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, STEWART, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined. HARLAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 403 U. S. 398. BURGER, C.J., post, p. 403 U. S. 411. BLACK, J., post, p. 403 U. S. 427, and BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 403 U. S. 430, filed dissenting opinions.

Page 403 U. S. 389p