Patricia C. Carroll v. United States of Am., 721 F.2d 155 (5th Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Patricia C. Carroll v. United States of Am., 721 F.2d 155 (5th Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ernest A. Gremillion v. Jack Chivatero (ca5, 1985-01-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ernest A. Gremillion v. Jack Chivatero
5th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) 9 Id. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 2406, 76 L.Ed.2d at 650 ; see also Hallock v. Moses, 731 F.2d 754, 757 (11th Cir.1984); Vest v. United States Dep't of Interior, 729 F.2d 1284, 1286 (10th Cir.1984); Carroll v. United States, 721 F.2d 155, 156 (5th Cir.1983); Broussard v. United States Postal Serv., 674 F.2d 1103 , 1112-13 & n. 7 (5th Cir.1982); Dynes v. Army Air Force Exchange Serv., 720 F.2d 1495, 1498 (11th Cir.1983); Gleason v. Malcom, 718 F.2d 1044, 1047 (11th Cir.1983) 10 Bush, 462 U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 2417, 76 L.E…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gremillion v. Chivatero
5th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Id. at -, 103 S.Ct. at 2406, 76 L.Ed.2d at 650 ; see also Hallock v. Moses, 731 F.2d 754, 757 (11th Cir.1984); Vest v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 729 F.2d 1284, 1286 (10th Cir.1984); Carroll v. United States, 721 F.2d 155, 156 (5th Cir.1983); Broussard v. United States Postal Serv., 674 F.2d 1103 , 1112-13 & n. 7 (5th Cir.1982); Dynes v. Army Air Force Exchange Serv., 720 F.2d 1495, 1498 (11th Cir.1983); Gleason v. Malcom, 718 F.2d 1044, 1047 (11th Cir.1983). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dailey v. Carlin
E.D. Mo. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Carroll v. United States, 721 F.2d 155 (5th Cir.1983) ( Bush precludes Bivens action by former employee seeking re-employment who only had "a measure" of administrative remedies), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1241 , 104 S.Ct. 3511 , 82 L.Ed.2d 820 (1984); Francisco v. Schmidt, 575 F.Supp. 1200 (E.D.Wis.1983) ( Bivens inappropriate in area of federal employment relations); Watson v. HUD, 576 F.Supp. 580 (N.D.Ill.1983) (administrative remedies for probationary employees adequate thereby precluding Bivens action); Kotarski v. Etter, 579 F.Supp. 391 (E.D.N.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Frank K. Kotarski v. V.L. Cooper, A.E. Navarro, W.J. Tinston, J.H. Kirkpatrick, Naval Air Rework Facility, Capt. P.A. Monroe, in His Official Capacity (2×)
9th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Carroll v. United States, 721 F.2d 155 (5th Cir.1983) (on rehearing) (Bush precludes Bivens action for former employee seeking reinstatement and back-pay; administrative remedy available for reinstatement but not back-pay), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1241 , 104 S.Ct. 3511 , 82 L.Ed.2d 820 (1984); Francisco v. Schmidt, 575 F.Supp. 1200 (E.D.Wis.1983) (Bivens inappropriate in area of federal employee relations); Watson v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 576 F.Supp. 580 (N.D.Ill.1983) (administrative remedies for probationary employees adequate); Crumpler v. Etter,…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Patricia C. CARROLL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
81-1540.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 16, 1983.
721 F.2d 155
Angel & Gassaway, Steven M. Angel, San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant., Anthony W. Vaughn, Asst. U.S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Barbara L. Herwig, Edward R. Cohen, Appellate Staff, Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.
Ingraham, Reavley, Politz.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

Treating the suggestion for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, the petition for rehearing is granted. The intervening decision by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Lucas, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983), requires the recall of our original opinion.

In Bush v. Lucas, the Supreme Court declined “to authorize a new nonstatutory damages remedy for federal employees whose First Amendment rights are violated by their superiors,” because the claims there presented arose out of “an employment relationship governed by comprehensive procedural and substantive provisions.” Id., — U.S. at —, 103 S.Ct. at 2406, 76 L.Ed. at 651. Bush v. Lucas involved an employee complaining of an adverse personnel action allegedly triggered by public statements of the employee. Administrative remedies were available and were exercised. The instant case involves a former employee who complains of mistreatment in reemployment because of union activity during the prior period of employment. A measure of administrative remedies was available and was exercised.

We cannot make a principled distinction between an employee and a former employee seeking re-employment, in the context as here presented, sufficient to base a holding that the teachings of Bush v. Lucas do not control. We consider Bush v. Lucas disposi-tive.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.