Jesse Skyberg v. Steve James

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 12, 2025*
Decided June 13, 2025
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-3156
JESSE SKYBERG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEVE JAMES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 22-cv-591-jdp
James D. Peterson,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Jesse Skyberg, a federal prisoner, sued a counselor at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Oxford, Wisconsin, for ignoring a doctor’s order to quarantine Skyberg
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Skyberg alleged that this conduct violated his rights
under the Eighth Amendment. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district judge granted the defendant’s motion to
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 24-3156 Page 2
dismiss because Skyberg’s claim presented a new Bivens context and special factors
weighed against extending the remedy. We affirm.
We accept the allegations in the amended complaint as true, viewing them in the
light most favorable to Skyberg. See Lax v. Mayorkas, 20 F.4th 1178, 1181 (7th Cir. 2021).
Skyberg has asthma. Steve James, a prison counselor at FCI Oxford, assigned Skyberg to
work as an orderly, and Skyberg’s job duties included cleaning the common area of a
housing unit.
In June 2020, after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Skyberg reported to
James that a physician had ordered him to quarantine because his asthma exposed him
to an increased risk of complications if he contracted the virus. Skyberg asked James to
move him to a single cell. James did not, and Skyberg continued to work as an orderly.
In October 2020, Skyberg’s cellmate tested positive for COVID-19, and Skyberg
contracted the virus two days later. As a result of his infection, Skyberg developed long-
term complications, including chest pains, fatigue, shortness of breath, and headaches.
In April 2021, Skyberg filed an informal resolution request through the prison’s
Administrative Remedy Program. He sought compassionate release because he had
health problems, including asthma, that placed him at an increased risk of
complications if he contracted new strains of COVID-19. The warden denied the
request, and Skyberg appealed, adding allegations about James’s conduct in June 2020.
The warden again denied relief. Skyberg appealed to the Bureau of Prisons’ Regional
Director, and finally, to the General Counsel, but both affirmed the warden’s denial.
Skyberg then filed this lawsuit in October 2022, alleging that James and other
prison staff violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment when they ignored the
doctor’s order to quarantine him. The district judge screened the complaint,
see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and allowed Skyberg to proceed on a claim against only James.
James filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the district judge granted.
The judge concluded that relief under Bivens was unavailable because Skyberg’s claim
presented a new context and special factors counseled against authorizing a Bivens
remedy. The judge first explained that while an implied damages remedy under Bivens
is available for an Eighth Amendment claim involving inadequate medical care, Carlson
v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), Skyberg’s claim presented two meaningful differences. First,
the defendants in Carlson, unlike James, were responsible for or involved in providing
medical care. Second, the judge observed that Skyberg’s claim involved the conditions
of his confinement, a type of claim not recognized by Bivens and its related cases. The

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 24-3156 Page 3
judge further explained that special factors weighed against implying a remedy.
Specifically, the judge pointed to the existence of the Administrative Remedy Program,
which allows a federal prisoner to file a complaint about any aspect of his confinement.
Skyberg moved for reconsideration, asserting that his claim did not present a
new context because there is no difference between an Eighth Amendment claim
against medical staff and non-medical staff, and he did not attempt to bring a
conditions-of-confinement claim. The judge denied the motion.
Skyberg appeals, arguing that the district judge incorrectly concluded that his
claim presented a new context and that special factors weighed against implying a
remedy. We review the dismissal of the complaint de novo. See Lax, 20 F.4th at 1181.
The Supreme Court has recognized an implied cause of action against federal
officers in their individual capacities for constitutional violations. Bivens, 403 U.S. at 396.
The Bivens remedy is available in only three contexts. See Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120,
140 (2017). As relevant here, in Carlson, the Supreme Court implied a Bivens remedy for
an Eighth Amendment claim of inadequate medical care in prison. 446 U.S. at 24–25.
Extending Bivens to a new context is “disfavored.” Abbasi, 582 U.S. at 135 (citation
omitted). Thus, we will not authorize a Bivens remedy when a claim is “different in a
meaningful way from previous Bivens cases” and “special factors” counsel against
authorizing the remedy. Id. at 139–40. The Supreme Court has identified some examples
of meaningful differences, including different officer ranks, the generality or specificity
of the official action, and the presence of other factors that previous Bivens cases did not
consider. See id.
First, we agree with the district judge that Skyberg’s claim differs meaningfully
from the claim in Carlson. In Carlson, the defendants—a chief medical officer and a
nurse—were alleged to have provided constitutionally inadequate medical care when
they did not respond to a prisoner’s asthma attack, administered the wrong medication,
and delayed a hospital transfer. See 446 U.S. at 16 n.1. In contrast, James was a non-
medical prison counselor, and his decision not to quarantine Skyberg affected the
conditions of Skyberg’s confinement, not the adequacy of his medical care. Skyberg’s
allegations center on James’s decisions to decline a single-cell assignment and mandate
Skyberg’s continued work cleaning common areas. Unlike in Carlson, Skyberg does not
raise any concerns about how staff treated his COVID-19 infection and resulting
complications. These differences convince us that Skyberg’s claim arises in a new
context. See, e.g., Sargeant v. Barfield, 87 F.4th 358, 366 (7th Cir. 2023) (Bivens claim arose

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 24-3156 Page 4
in new context because it involved a housing assignment, which differed from medical
context in Carlson); Bulger v. Hurwitz, 62 F.4th 127, 138 (4th Cir. 2023) (same).
Second, the district judge correctly concluded that the existence of the Bureau of
Prisons’ administrative review process weighs against implying a new cause of action.
If Congress crafts an alternative remedial structure that is adequate to deter
misconduct, that is “reason enough” not to authorize the Bivens remedy. See Egbert v.
Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 493 (2022). In federal prisons, a prisoner may seek “formal review”
of issues relating to “any aspect” of confinement through the Administrative Remedy
Program. 28 C.F.R. § 542.10(a). This process allowed Skyberg to seek redress for his
concerns related to his health, housing, and work assignments, see Corr. Servs. Corp. v.
Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 74 (2001), and precludes the extension of Bivens to this context.
Skyberg insists that the Administrative Remedy Program is inadequate because
James prevented him from accessing grievance forms, which left Skyberg unable to seek
administrative review. But we consider only whether there is a reason why Congress is
better positioned to assess the need for a remedy, not whether that remedy is
functionally available. See Sargeant, 87 F.4th at 368. In any event, the Administrative
Remedy Program was available to Skyberg—he filed an informal resolution request for
compassionate release and appealed using every review mechanism available.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --