Yet Another Split Rejection of Pure Bivens Appeals
Disclosure: I participated in a moot oral argument for the plaintiff-appellee in this case.
In Garraway v. Ciufo, a divided Ninth Circuit held that federal officials cannot immediately appeal the Bivens question without a qualified-immunity appeal.
So far the courts of appeals have unanimously rejected the federal government’s efforts to secure immediate Bivens appeals. But these decisions have produced dissents, with judges contending that immediate appeals are warranted due to the interests the Bivens question implicates. And at least one more pending appeal presents this issue. This is probably not the end of the government’s attempts to secure pure Bivens appeals.
For more in-depth discussions of the government’s attempts at pure Bivens appeals, see the posts The Third Circuit Split on Pure Bivens Appeals and Another Rejection of Pure Bivens Appeals.
The majority determined that the interests at stake—separation of powers, protecting the efficiency of the Executive Branch—are not irreparably harmed by delaying an appeal. Granted, those interests are important. But they can be protected via qualified-immunity appeals (with which the Bivens question can tag along) or in an appeal after a final judgment. And the Bivens question does not implicate an avoidance-of-litigation interest like qualified immunity.
In short, there was “no right permanently destroyed” nor sufficiently important “harm irreparably done.” The only irreparable harm was “litigation burdensome to government officials.” And that doesn’t warrant an immediate appeal.
Judge Bumatay dissented. Like prior dissents on this issue, he contended that delayed review of the Bivens question threatens “a substantial public interest”: separation-of-powers problems that affect all three branches of government. He suggested that barring Bivens remedies is necessary to protect federal officials from the burdens of litigation. He even contended that “the threat of any impact on the executive branch from Bivens liability cries out for immediate review.”
There’s at least one more pending appeal presenting this issue. But given the persistence with which the government is pushing this issue, I won’t be surprised to see more.
Garraway v. Ciufo, 2024 WL 4020022 (9th Cir. Sep. 3, 2024), available at the Ninth Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In Fleming v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit became the fifth court of appeals to reject pure Bivens appeals. The court held that federal officials cannot immediately appeal the Bivens question without also appealing the denial of qualified immunity. Unlike some of the prior decisions, this one was unanimous. And it puts the government’s record […]
Continue reading....
The federal government appears to be on a mission to get immediate appeals for orders recognizing a Bivens remedy. So far, those efforts have been unsuccessful. Two courts of appeals—the Third and the Sixth Circuits—have rejected these pure Bivens appeals. In Mohamed v. Jones, the Tenth Circuit became the third. Like the Third and Sixth […]
Continue reading....
In Graber v. Doe II, a panel of the Third Circuit split on whether federal officials could immediately appeal the Bivens question without a qualified-immunity appeal. It’s the second decision in recent memory to reject a pure Bivens appeal. And this time, at least one judge was willing to hold that the Bivens issue was […]
Continue reading....
In Pettibone v. Russell, the Ninth Circuit categorically held that it could address the Bivens question as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. In the course of doing so, the court rejected its older cases holding to the contrary.
Continue reading....
The Bivens question asks whether a damages action exists for a federal official’s unconstitutional conduct. In Wilkie v. Robbins, the Supreme Court held that courts of appeals can address the Bivens question as part of an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity. But the Bivens question standing alone has not been deemed immediately appealable. […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]
Continue reading....
In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.
Continue reading....
In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]
Continue reading....
September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]
Continue reading....