Springer v. United States ( 2022 )

Case: 21-11248 Document: 00516364463 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 21, 2022
No. 21-11248
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Lindsey Kent Springer, #02580-063,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
United States; Mark Christian, Food and Drug
Administration; Ernesto Rosales, Assistant Warden at
Forrest City; Bureau of Prisons,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:20-CV-03088-B-BH
Before Clement, Ho, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Lindsey Springer is a former federal inmate who
alleges he was exposed to asbestos, mold, and secondhand smoke while
working a prison job in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-11248 Document: 00516364463 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2022
No. 21-11248
Accordingly, he brought a Bivens action against two BOP employees in their
individual capacities, claiming that the BOP employees were deliberately
indifferent to his health and safety in violation of his Eighth Amendment
rights. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice, concluding
that (1) Springer’s claims arose in a “new context”; (2) special factors
counseled against extending Bivens to Springer’s claims; and (3) even if
Bivens extended to Springer’s claims, they failed on their merits because he
could not show deliberate indifference. Springer v. United States, No. 3:20-
CV-3088-B (BH), 2021 WL 4552239, at *14–18 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2021),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:20-CV-3088-B (BH), 2021 WL
4859636 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2021). Springer appealed. We AFFIRM.
The Supreme Court has authorized an implied damages remedy
against federal officers for constitutional violations (Bivens action) only three
times. See Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (Eighth Amendment claim
for failure to provide adequate medical treatment to inmate); Davis v.
Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (Fifth Amendment Due Process claim for
gender discrimination); Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S.
388 (1971) (Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable search and seizure);
see also Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1854–55 (2017) (discussing Carlson,
Davis, and Bivens). Bivens does not extend to “new contexts”—that is, those
that are “different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided
by [the Supreme] Court.” Butler v. S. Porter, 999 F.3d 287, 294 (5th Cir.
2021), cert. denied sub nom. Butler v. Porter, 142 S. Ct. 766, 211 L. Ed. 2d 480(2022) (quoting Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1864).
This is a new context. To be sure, Springer asserts an Eighth
Amendment claim, for which the Supreme Court authorized a Bivens remedy
in Carlson. But Carlson involved a deliberate indifference to medical needs
claim, whereas Springer’s claim is essentially for failure to provide a safe
2
Case: 21-11248 Document: 00516364463 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2022
No. 21-11248
working environment (condition of confinement claim). Both arise under the
Eighth Amendment, but that is about all they have in common.
Springer does not claim that he had a serious medical condition for
which he did not receive treatment. Nor does he claim that he received
inadequate medical treatment. Rather, he claims that the defendants failed
to recognize the presence of asbestos and mold, which prevented him from
being able to provide information to medical staff about his asbestos and mold
exposure. Not only that, but Springer acknowledges that the defendants
cleaned the rooms that he alleges contained asbestos and mold and ordered
new doors for the rooms to improve airflow. This case is much different than
Carlson.
Moreover, as the district court recognized, special factors counsel
against extending Bivens here. First, Springer had adequate alternative
remedies available to him—including the Inmate Accident Compensation
Act and the BOP’s administrative remedy program. Second, Congress has
legislated (post-Carlson) regarding prisoners’ rights and has had the
opportunity to extend Carlson to other “kinds” of prisoner claims under the
Eighth Amendment. But it has not done so. Whether and to what extent
Bivens extends to the kind of claim Springer advances is an issue best left for
Congress to address.
* * *
The district court properly dismissed Springer’s Bivens claims. The
judgment is AFFIRMED.
3