Eleventh Circuit Affirms Refusal to Expand Bivens to Claim Alleging Federal Prisoner Died from Denial of Treatment for Hepatitis C
by David M. Reutter
On July 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed an order granting judgment on the pleadings that refused to expand a Bivens claim to include an Eighth Amendment claim alleging prison officials denied Hepatitis C treatment to a prisoner. The Court concluded that not only did the claim raise a new context, but that the Administrative Remedy Program (ARP) was a special factor that precluded expansion of Bivens.
Shortly after booking at the Federal Detention Center (FDC) in Tallahassee on August 9, 2018, pre-trial detainee Raymond Carrin was diagnosed with “Asymptomatic Hepatitis C Virus (HCV).” HCV is treatable with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) drugs that are taken orally for 8-12 weeks. Carrin sought to start treatment immediately, as he expected to be at FDC Tallahassee for 4-5 months awaiting disposition of his charges.
Dr. Joseph Jimenez confirmed the expected length of Carrin’s stay. Jimenez, however, indicated the treatment plan had to “await regional non-formulary approval.” Shauna Smiledge, FDC’s Health Services Administrator, informed Carrin that treatment could not begin until he arrived at his designated prison. As his case progressed, it became clear that Carrin would remain at FDC Tallahassee until he testified for the government in August 2019.
Carrin pleaded guilty on October 29, 2018, and informed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida that FDC Tallahassee was denying him medical care. Carrin began developing rashes related to HCV. Despite emailing Jimenez and Smiledge concerning his worsening condition between January and July 2019, Carrin was still denied HCV treatment. In September 2019, Carrin was transported to an outside hospital, which determined his condition required a liver transplant. On December 5, 2019, Carrin died in a Kentucky federal prison of hepatic cirrhosis. His estate sued Jimenez and Smiledge.
The district court granted a judgment on the pleadings, finding it was improper to expand Bivens to include Carrin’s claim. Carrin appealed. Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) is a judicially created remedy that the Court found was implied by federal law.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has limited Bivens claims to: (1) violations of the Fourth Amendment, (2) violations of due process under Fifth Amendment for sexual discrimination, and (3) an Eighth Amendment claim alleging deliberate indifference in the treatment of a prisoner’s asthma condition that resulted in death.
Bivens remains good law, but its expansion is a highly disfavored judicial activity. SCOTUS created a framework to limit its expansion. The framework prohibits expansion when a complaint presents a new context. Therefore, new factual scenarios cannot support a Bivens clam.
In Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), SCOTUS created the third Bivens claim, but it set forth two exceptions that prohibit further new expansion: (1) when defendants show special factors counseling against hesitation in the absence of Congressional affirmative action, and (2) when defendants show Congress has created an alternative remedy that is explicitly declared to be an equally effective substitute for relief. SCOTUS has not recognized a new Bivens cause of action in four decades.
The Eleventh Circuit found that the factual scenario underlying Carrin’s claim was a new context for an Eighth Amendment Bivens claim. The Court focused on its holding in Johnson v. Terry, 119 F.4th 840 (11th Cir 2024), cert. denied 146 S.Ct. 101 (2025), which held that the ARP precluded expansion of Bivens because it provided an alternative remedial remedy. The Court found that Carrin failed to utilize the ARP by not filing any grievances related to the denial of HCV treatment. Therefore, the district court’s order was affirmed. See: Carrin v. Strong, 182 F.4th 1351 (11th Cir. 2026).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Carrin v. Strong
| Year | 2026 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 182 F.4th 1351 (11th Cir. 2026) |
| Level | District Court |