Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mccarthy Vs. Madigan

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 09, 1991

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

72 entries 8 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Cohens Vs. Virginia US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1821
  2. Gibson Vs. Berryhill US Supreme Court · May 07, 1973
  3. Mathews Vs. Diaz US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1976
  4. Barry Vs. Barchi US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1979
  5. Houghton Vs. Shafer US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1968
    Relied / Followed
  6. Turner Vs. Safley US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1987
  7. Yick Wo Vs. Hopkins US Supreme Court · May 10, 1886
  8. Mathews Vs. Eldridge US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1976
  9. U.S. 140 (1991) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Mccarthy V. Madigan
    Search
  10. Decided March 4,1992 While a federal prisoner, petitioner McCarthy filed a damages action under Bivens v. Six
    Search
  11. promulgated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons before he may initiate a suit, pursuant to the authority of Bivens v. Six
    Search
  12. granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals.1 499 U. S. 974 (1991). 1 Compare Hessbrook v. Lennon
    Search
  13. F.2d 999 (CA5 1985) (exhaustion required), and Brice v. Day
    Search
  14. F.2d 664 (CAlO 1979) (same), cert. denied, 444 U. S. lO86 (1980), with Muhammad v. Carlson
    Search
  15. kind of hearing or for the granting of any particular type of relief. 1984) (exhaustion not required), and Goar v. Civiletti
    Search
  16. Ibid., quoting Goar v. Civiletti
    Search
  17. to any exhaustion inquiry is congressional intent. Patsy v. Board
    Search
  18. S. 496 , 501 (1982). Where Congress specifically mandates, exhaustion is required. Coit Independence Joint Venture v. FSLIC
    Search
  19. U. S., at 502, n. 4. But where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs. McGee v. United
    Search
  20. prescribed administrative remedies before 145 seeking relief from the federal courts. See, e. g., Myers v. Bethlehem
    Search
  21. discretionary power or when the agency proceedings in question allow the agency to apply its special expertise. McKart v. United
    Search
  22. States, 395 U. S. 185 , 194 (1969). See also Bowen v. City
    Search
  23. could weaken an agency's effectiveness by encouraging disregard of its procedures. McKart v. United
    Search
  24. errors, a judicial controversy may well be mooted, or at least piecemeal appeals may be avoided. See, e. g., Parisi v. Davidson
    Search
  25. McKart v. United
    Search
  26. judicial consideration, especially in a complex or technical factual context. See, e. g., Weinberger 146 v. Salfi
    Search
  27. to exercise the jurisdiction given them. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United
    Search
  28. West v. Bergland
    Search
  29. Bowen v. City
    Search
  30. of New York, 476 U. S., at 484, citing Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  31. prejudice may result, for example, from an unreasonable or indefinite timeframe for administrative action. See Gibson v. Berryhill
    Search
  32. See also Coit Independence Joint Venture v. FSLIC
    Search
  33. Walker v. Southern
    Search
  34. Smith v. Illinois
    Search
  35. plaintiff may suffer irreparable harm if unable to secure immediate judicial consideration of his claim. Bowen v. City
    Search
  36. Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch
    Search
  37. apply with less force when an individual's failure to exhaust may preclude a defense to criminal liability. Moore v. East
    Search
  38. par- 148 ticular type of issue presented, such as the constitutionality of a statute. See, e. g., Moore v. East
    Search
  39. U. S. 55, 63, n. 10 (1979) (quoting Gibson v. Berryhill
    Search
  40. competent to adjudicate the issue presented, but still lack authority to grant the type of relief requested. McNeese v. Board
    Search
  41. Montana National Bank of Billings v. Yellowstone
    Search
  42. where the administrative body is shown to be biased or has otherwise predetermined the issue before it. Gibson v. Berryhill
    Search
  43. Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. FTC
    Search
  44. bias of Federal Trade Commission chairman), cert. denied, 447 U. S. 921 (1980). See also Patsy v. Florida
    Search
  45. rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Patsy v. Board
    Search
  46. provided that the underlying state prison administrative remedy meets specified standards. See Patsy v. Board
    Search
  47. and (2) where, in the absence of affirmative action by Congress, special factors counsel hesitation. Carlson v. Green
    Search
  48. likely to be unduly inhibited in the performance of their duties by the assertion of a Bivens claim. Carlson v. Green
    Search
  49. early notice of any claim, we have not been apprised of any urgency or exigency justifying this timetable. Cf. Yakus v. United
    Search
  50. of the administrative agency's authority to award relief counsels against requiring exhaustion. See Hillsborough v. Cromwell
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial