Precedents Cited

1) Appellate forfeiture and framing of issues

The court invoked Scott v. First S. Nat'l Bank, 936 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2019), to treat claims as forfeited when not meaningfully pursued on appeal. Here, because Crenshaw “makes no reference” to the IIED and § 3624 counts on appeal, the panel refused to review them—an application of issue-preservation doctrine that narrows appellate review to argued errors.

2) Pleading standards on Rule 12(b)(6) review

The panel relied on Bickerstaff v. Lucarelli, 830 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2016), for de novo review, the requirement of plausibility, and rejection of conclusory allegations. That baseline mattered because the core deficiency across defendants was the absence of defendant-specific factual content.

For timeliness-based dismissals, the court cited Wershe v. City of Detroit, 112 F.4th 357 (6th Cir. 2024), confirming de novo review of untimeliness determinations and setting out equitable-tolling factors.

3) The modern (restricted) scope of Bivens

The court began with the threshold proposition—drawn from Enriquez-Perdomo v. Newman, 54 F.4th 855 (6th Cir. 2022)— that constitutional damages suits against federal officials are generally unavailable except within the narrow Bivens line.

It then re-centered the analysis on the Supreme Court’s “trilogy”:

• Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure).
• Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (Fifth Amendment sex-discrimination employment claim).
• Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference / prisoner medical harm leading to death and injuries).

For the “new context” inquiry, the panel applied Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017), which lists contextual differences that can make a claim “meaningfully different” from the trilogy (including the right at issue, nature of official action, and separation-of-powers concerns).

The panel reinforced the stringent standard with Elhady v. Unidentified CBP Agents, 18 F.4th 880 (6th Cir. 2021), emphasizing that a new context exists if a claim differs “in virtually any way” from the trilogy and that courts will “almost always [] never” recognize a new action.

For special factors and alternative remedies, the panel relied on Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), stating that courts may not create a Bivens remedy where Congress has provided (or authorized) an alternative remedial structure.

On the Sixth Circuit’s post-Egbert approach, the panel cited Enriquez-Perdomo v. Newman, 149 F.4th 623 (6th Cir. 2025), as collecting Supreme Court refusals to extend Bivens and describing the two-step analysis.

4) FTCA availability, deadlines, and equitable tolling

To describe the FTCA cause of action, the panel cited Zappone v. United States, 870 F.3d 551 (6th Cir. 2017), including the “two limitations periods” (presentment within two years; suit within six months of denial).

For the availability of equitable tolling under the FTCA, the panel cited United States v. Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (2015), which held FTCA filing deadlines are not jurisdictional and can be equitably tolled in appropriate cases.

For the substantive tolling standards (“circumstances beyond control,” not “garden variety … excusable neglect”), the panel relied on Zappone v. United States. For the multi-factor evaluation (notice, knowledge, diligence, prejudice, reasonableness), it relied on Wershe v. City of Detroit.

Finally, the panel referenced Milligan v. United States, 670 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2012), to support that the FTCA can encompass false-imprisonment-type torts—important to its conclusion that an alternative remedial scheme existed, even though Crenshaw ultimately missed the FTCA deadline.

5) § 1983 elements and defendant-specific pleading

On the basic § 1983 standard—constitutional deprivation plus action under color of state law—the panel cited Hester v. Chester County, 162 F.4th 780 (6th Cir. 2025), quoting West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988).

For the requirement that each individual defendant’s conduct be alleged “with particularity,” the panel cited Heyward v. Cooper, 88 F.4th 648 (6th Cir. 2023). That principle did the decisive work in rejecting claims against the state wardens, because Crenshaw’s theory targeted his prolonged federal custody while failing to connect that harm to any act by the state wardens.

Legal Reasoning

1) Federal defendant: why the constitutional claim failed (Bivens)

The panel’s reasoning was layered:

• Proper cause-of-action labeling: Because Crenshaw sued a federal warden for constitutional damages, § 1983 was unavailable; the only possible vehicle would be Bivens (if recognized).
• Pleading/personal involvement: The complaint identified the federal warden only as a named party and otherwise used collective references to “Defendants.” Under Marcilis v. Township of Redford, that is insufficient; constitutional damages claims require facts showing what each defendant did.
• No extension to a new context: The court held the claim presented an “entirely new Bivens context,” because (a) the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fourteenth Amendment Bivens claim, and (b) even where the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments have appeared in the trilogy, none addressed prolonged custody after a sentence reduction pending transfer to state custody for a parole violation.
• Special factors/alternative remedies: The FTCA constituted an alternative remedial structure for the alleged wrongful detention, counseling against judicial creation of a new Bivens remedy under Egbert v. Boule.

2) Federal tort route: why the FTCA claim failed (limitations and tolling)

Even though the FTCA could theoretically address wrongful-detention torts, the panel treated timeliness as dispositive. Crenshaw’s administrative FTCA claim was denied on September 29, 2021, and the denial letter expressly advised of a six-month deadline to sue. Under Zappone v. United States, Crenshaw had until March 29, 2022; he filed on March 15, 2024.

On equitable tolling, the panel emphasized that Crenshaw bore the burden and did not meaningfully develop the argument. Applying Wershe v. City of Detroit and Zappone v. United States, the court found: (1) actual or constructive notice of the deadline (including notice to counsel and the statute’s plain text), (2) lack of diligence given the multi-year delay, and (3) no independent tolling basis based solely on lack of prejudice (and the federal defendant asserted prejudice through staler evidence).

3) State defendants: why the § 1983 claims failed (no specific acts; mismatch between theory and actors)

The panel framed the gravamen of the complaint as “prolonged detention in federal custody” after the federal sentence reduction. But the state wardens were not alleged to have taken specific actions that extended Crenshaw’s federal confinement. Under Heyward v. Cooper, group pleading cannot substitute for defendant-specific allegations.

The court also observed that although Crenshaw alleged he was held in state custody upon transfer, he did not allege that this state custody was itself unlawful. That omission prevented the complaint from pivoting into a coherent state-custody constitutional claim.

Impact

Although unpublished, the decision reflects three broader trends with practical consequences for future litigants:

• Overdetention claims against federal officials face a double barrier: plaintiffs must plead defendant-specific conduct with factual precision, and they must overcome the near-categorical post-Egbert v. Boule resistance to extending Bivens into new detention-administration contexts.
• FTCA timeliness is outcome-determinative: Even when the FTCA is described as an alternative remedy for detention-related torts, missing the six-month post-denial deadline will typically end the case; equitable tolling requires more than delay and generalized explanations.
• Detainer/transfer scenarios require careful defendant selection and theory alignment: Claims about prolonged federal custody must be tied to federal actors and federal processes; naming state wardens without alleging their concrete causal role will not survive Rule 12(b)(6).