BILLIE JO MCALISTER, APPELLEE,
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, ROBERT G. ULRICH, AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES REGIONAL ATTORNEY, PAUL CACIOPPO, APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that federal employees cannot bring Bivens-type claims for constitutional violations arising from their employment relationship.
Plaintiff, a former federal employee, sued two federal officials alleging their failure to investigate his discrimination claim violated his constitut…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Absolute Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
[*753] PER CURIAM.
United States Attorney Robert G. Ulrich and Department of Health & Human Services Regional Attorney Paul Cacioppo appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment in a Bivens -type constitutional tort action brought against them by Billie Jo McAlister. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We reverse.
McAlister’s present action arises from a complaint, which he is now pursuing administratively, of handicap discrimination against him by his former employer, the Social Security Administration. McAlister contends Ulrich and Cacioppo’s failure to investigate his discrimination claim, to meet with him, or to answer his questions, violated his rights to due process and access to the courts. Ulrich and Cacioppo moved for summary judgment on the ground they were protected from suit by either absolute or qualified immunity.
We agree with the district court that McAlister’s complaint is difficult to comprehend, but as we read his pleadings, the complaint is cast as a Bivens -type constitutional tort claim. The United States Supreme Court, however, has refused to extend Bivens to encompass claims brought by federal employees for constitutional violations arising out of their employment relationship. See Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 390, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 2417, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983). Cf. Premachandra v. United States, 739 F. 2d 392, 394 (8th Cir.1984) (civil service remedies exclusive redress for wrongfully discharged federal employees) (relying on Bush). Thus, McAlister has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment and remand with directions to dismiss McAlis-ter’s complaint. Because we dismiss for failure to state a claim, we do not reach the issue of immunity.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971)
- Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1983)
- Premachandra v. United States, 739 F.2d 392 (8th Cir. 1984)