Biven's Decision

[Destry]

Biven's Decision

Bivens Decision.pdf

(557.81 KiB) Downloaded 2035 times

[AcquiringFreedom]

Hello, Destry or the one responsible for the creation of this file. Has anyone else had a problem downloading this file? It came up with 2 paragraphs at the top of the page I could read, and the rest is backwards printing and not even legible, very light. Please advise.

[Destry]

Recitation of the Biven’s Decision by: “This meeting is private. Bearing false witness, misrepresentation, and posting inflammatory rhetoric in public forums is forbidden and shall be addressed in an appropriate manner. To eliminate all conflict and false allegations, is there anyone in attendance at today’s meeting that is a member or agent of any law enforcement agency of the federal, state, county, city or township agencies present? (Repeat three times. or Is there any response to the Biven’s Decision for the first time, is there any response to the Biven’s Decision the second time, and any response to the Biven’s Decision for the third and final time)?”

[LiteracyLady]

Where does Biven's Decision come from - background?

[bobbynorth1]

Constitutional Torts - Bivens Actions
The Supreme Court created a private damages action against federal officials for constitutional torts (civil rights violations), which are not covered by the FTCA. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Court held that the Fourth Amendment gives rise to a right of action against federal law enforcement officials for damages from an unlawful search and seizure. Since a Bivens action is brought against a federal official in the official’s personal capacity, it is not considered to be an action against the United States and therefore is not barred by sovereign immunity. Bivens is not a general tort law. The plaintiff seeking a damages remedy under Bivens must first demonstrate that constitutional rights have been violated.[Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) ]
Bivens suits have been acknowledged by the Court as having more of a deterrence effect against federal officials from committing constitutional torts than the FTCA. This is chiefly because a Bivens suit is a personal suit against the official, and punitive damages are recoverable. The government is substituted for the defendant in FTCA cases, and the FTCA does not allow punitive damages. Thus a Bivens defendant is at risk of personal liability, including punitive damages, while the government pays all damages in FTCA cases. Procedurally, a plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial in a Bivens action, but not in a FTCA case.[Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) ]
The main defense for a federal official in a Bivens action is official immunity from actions for damages. There are two types of official immunity available as affirmative defenses: absolute and qualified.[ Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978)] Absolute immunity is granted to judges, prosecutors, legislators, and the President, so long as they are acting within the scope of their duties. Qualified immunity applies to federal officials and agents who perform discretionary functions, but may be overcome by a showing that their conduct violated a constitutional right.[Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) ]

[bobbynorth1]

NJA may want to consider this, not a lawyer, just learned it along the way.

42 USC § 1983 is a statute, a law enacted by Congress. The law allows a person whose Constitutional rights were violated by government officials to sue in federal court. The defendant in the case must be someone acting on behalf of a state or local government. A plaintiff can also sue a local government, such as a city, for violating his constitutional rights.

Congress passed 42 USC § 1983 because of a concern after the United States Civil War that southern states deprived black people of their Constitutional rights. 42 USC §1983 empowers victims to sue state officials, and those acting on their behalf.

A Bivens Action is different because the defendant in a Bivens Action is alleged to be acting on behalf of the federal government, not a state government. The Supreme Court, in Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), held that plaintiffs whose Constitutional rights were violated by persons acting on behalf of the federal government (may) have an implied right to sue federal officials in federal court. The plaintiff in that case was named Warren Bivens so now we call these types of cases “Bivens Actions”.
bobby brown

[Destry]

Actually the states are a franchise of the Federal level as municipal territories. So Biven's Decision applies to all including Township employees.