Carlson v. Green
United States Supreme Court
446 U.S. 14, 100 S. Ct. 1468, 64 L. Ed. 2d 15 (1980)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Joseph Jones, Jr., died while incarcerated in a federal prison. Maria Green (plaintiff), Jones’s mother, filed a lawsuit in federal district court against a group of prison officials (defendants), alleging that the prison officials engaged in cruel and unusual punishment against Jones in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Green sought damages against the prison officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The district court dismissed Green’s complaint, holding that, though Jones himself could have filed a Bivens claim against the prison officials had he survived, Green was required to file a claim under state survivorship and wrongful-death laws. Green appealed. The court of appeals reversed the district court, holding that Green could assert a Bivens claim herself. The prison officials appealed, arguing that Green was barred from asserting a Bivens claim because she was able to file a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The prison officials reasoned that the FTCA preempted Bivens claims and that if a plaintiff had a cause of action under both Bivens and the FTCA, the plaintiff was required to pursue the FTCA claim. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)
Concurrence (Powell, J.)
Dissent (Rehnquist, J.)
Dissent (Burger, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
