Find Court Cases > Hui v. Castaneda

Hui v. Castaneda

Case Date: 03/02/2010
Docket No: none

Facts of the Case 

These cases involve malpractice suits against Public Health Service ("PHS") employees. The plaintiffs filed actions recognized by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in a California federal district court alleging violations of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. The PHS sought a dismissal arguing that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) preempted Bivens claims. The district court rejected the argument and denied the motion to dismiss.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that FTCA did not preempt Bivens claims. The court reasoned that the FTCA was enacted six months prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Bivens and, thus, could not have been intended as a substitute.

Read the Briefs for this Case
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Commissioned Officers Association of the United States Public Health Service, Inc., the Uniformed Services Academy of Family Physicians, Inc., American Medical Association, And American Academy of Family Physicians In Support of Peti
  • Reply Brief for Petitioner
  • Brief for Respondents
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Rep. Zoe Lofgren, And Rep. Jerrold Nadler In Support of Respondents
  • Brief of the American Civil Liberties Union as Amicus Curiae In Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Amici Curiae National Experts On Health Services for Detained Persons In Support of Respondents
    • Question 

    Is the FTCA the exclusive remedy for claims arising from medical care and related functions provided by PHS personnel, thus, barring Bivens actions?

    Argument Hui v. Castaneda - Oral ArgumentFull Transcript Text  Download MP3Hui v. Castaneda - Opinion AnnouncementFull Transcript Text  Download MP3 Conclusion  Decision: 9 votes for Hui, 0 vote(s) against Legal provision:

    Yes. The Supreme Court held that the immunity provided by the FTCA precludes Bivens actions against individual PHS officers or employees for harms arising out of constitutional violations committed while acting within the scope of their offices or employment. Justice Sonia Sotamayor, writing for a unanimous Court, reasoned that 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) plainly and clearly provides that the FTCA is the "exclusive" avenue for claims like those at issue in this case.