28 U.S.C. § 2676
Judgment as bar
The judgment in an action under section 1346(b) of this title shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 151
cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: Pesnell v. Arsenault
Pesnell v. Arsenault (2008)
“04(A); the third is a Bivens2 constitutional claim, for violation of Pesnell’s Fourth Amendment right by the defen- dants based on an unlawful search and seizure of Pesnell’s person and property; and the fourth is a Bivens claim under the Fifth Amendment, for the defendants…”
James King v. United States (2019)
“The Federal Tort Claims Act Judgment Bar Does Not Preclude Plaintiff’s Claims Against Defendants The Court requested supplemental briefing on whether the judgment bar of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), see 28 U.S.C. § 2676 , prohibits Plaintiff from maintaining his § 1983…”
Denson v. United States (2009)
“Turning to *1334 the Bivens claims in Count IX, the court found that they were barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2676 . [50] Denson objected to the court's invocation of the § 2676 bar on grounds that the bar only applies to cases where the United States is unsuccessful in defending against…”
Ronnie Harris v. United States (2005)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 2676 . In this case, Ronnie Harris attempted to use both avenues.”
Unus v. Kane (2009)
“28 U.S.C. § 2676 . We have not heretofore assessed the scope and ambit of the FTCA judgment bar provision.”
Franka v. Velasquez (2011)
“[80] 28 U.S.C. § 2676 ("The judgment in an action under [the Federal Tort Claims Act] shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.”
Brownback v. King (2021)
“” 28 U. S. C. §2676 . A “judgment” is “[a] court’s final determination of the rights and obligations of the par- ties in a case.”
Gasho v. United States (1994)
“The district court dismissed the Bivens action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2676 . We have jurisdiction over both of the Gashos’ appeals pursuant to 28 U.”
Michalik v. Hermann (2005)
“Levis filed no answer to the Micha-liks’ third amended complaint, but instead filed a motion to dismiss, asserting qualified immunity and the judgment bar provision of the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. § 2676 . The district court denied Levis’s motion to dismiss and similarly denied Levis’s…”
Dallas Cty. Mental Health and Mental Retardation v. Bossley (1998)
“106 does not apply because their action against the individual defendants does not "involve[] the same subject matter" as their action against Dallas County MHMR. The Federal Tort Claims Act contains a similar provision: "[t]he judgment in [a Federal Tort Claims Act] action .”
Hedrick v. Tabbert (2000)
“The federal district court dismissed the second Bivens Action on that basis, as well as on the basis that 28 U.S.C. § 2676 barred the claim. [6] Hedrick and Snyder subsequently retained another attorney to appeal the adverse judgment in the Bivens Action.”
Farmer v. Perrill (2001)
“They assert two grounds for reversal: (1) Farmer’s claims are barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2676 , 3 and (2) defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.