Watkins v. Lieutenant Martinez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: January 31, 2022
• Docket: 20-40781
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 20-40781 Document: 00516185260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED January 31, 2022 No. 20-40781 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

Eric Watkins,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Lieutenant FNU Martinez, In His Personal and Official Capacity Independently if possible; Correctional Officer K Hinson, In His Official and Personal Capacity, Independently if possible; Correctional Officer FNU Bijou, In His Personal and Official Capacity, Independently if possible; Bureau of Prisons, In Its Official Capacity,

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CV-98

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:*

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-40781 Document: 00516185260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2022

Eric Watkins, a former federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Bivens1 action as barred by the statute of limitations. The district court dismissed Watkins’s complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). A dismissal as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013). We may affirm the district court’s dismissal on any basis supported by the record. Watkins v. Three Administrative Remedy Coordinators, 998 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2021). The Supreme Court “has made clear that expanding the Bivens remedy is now a disfavored judicial activity.” Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1857 (2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In order to decide whether a Bivens remedy exists, the court must first determine if a case “present[s] a new context for Bivens purposes.” Hernandez v. Mesa, 885 F.3d 811, 815 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A case presents a new Bivens context if it “is different in a meaningful way from prior Bivens cases,” even when there are “similarities between the right and the mechanism of injury involved in previous successful Bivens claims.” Id. at 816 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). If the “claim presents a new Bivens context,” the claim is unavailable if (1) “there are special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress,” or (2) “an alternative, existing process for protecting the interest amounts to a convincing reason for the Judicial Branch to refrain from providing a new and freestanding remedy in damages.” Butts v. Martin, 877 F.3d 571, 587 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

1 Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Case: 20-40781 Document: 00516185260 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/31/2022

No. 20-40781

Watkins’s claim against the correctional officers is best construed as an excessive force claim under the Eighth Amendment, which raises a Bivens claim in a new context. See Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1859. There are special factors that counsel hesitation, including the existence of the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Bureau of Prisons’s (BOP) Administrative Remedy Program, which provide alternative methods of relief. See Cantú v. Moody, 933 F.3d 414, 423 (5th Cir. 2019); Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 74 (2001); see also Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1858. For these reasons, Watkins does not have a viable Bivens claim against the correctional officers. See Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1858. In addition, Watkins does not have a cause of action against the BOP. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 485-86 (1994) (explaining that a damages remedy against federal agencies would circumvent the purpose of Bivens, that is to deter individual officers). AFFIRMED.