Francisco Castaneda, a U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee had an irregular, raised lesion that measured roughly two centimeters square. on his penis Castaneda complained to medical personnel working for the Division of Immigration Health Services, at the San Diego Correctional Facility (SDCF)reporting that the lesion was growing in size and becoming more painful and that it frequently bled and emitted a discharge. Dr. Esther Hui, a civilian Public Health Service (PHS) employee, was the physician responsible for Castaneda’s medical care during his detention at SDCF. Commander Stephen Gonsalves, a commissioned PHS officer, was a Health Services Administrator at SDCF during the relevant period.

Castaneda developed a lump in his groin. Staff and outside specialists advised that a biopsy be performed to determine whether he had cancer. Hui and Gonsalves denied requests for a biopsy and other recommended procedures as “elective.” He was treated with ibuprofen and antibiotics and was given an additional ration of boxer shorts.

Finally after nearly a year of incarceration, the procedure was finally authorized. Instead of providing treatment ICE released Castaneda from custody. A week later, a biopsy confirmed Castaneda suffered from penile cancer. Castaneda’s penis was amputated and he began chemotherapy Tests confirmed that the cancer metastasized to his groin. Treatment was unsuccessful, and Castaneda died.

Prior to his death he filed a suit against Hui and Gonsalves. In the landmark 1971 Supreme Court decision,Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents the Supreme Court ruled that individuals have the right to sue government agents for violations of their rights. In Bivens the Court found that a cause of action existed when government agents allegedly violated Biven’s Fourth Amendment rights.However 42 U.S.C. 233(a) states in pertinent part:

The remedy against the United States . . . for damage for personal injury, including death, resulting from the performance of medical, surgical, dental, or related functions, . . . by any commissioned officer or employee of the Public Health Service while acting within the scope of his office or employment, shall be exclusive of any other civil action . . . by reason of the same subject-matter against the officer or employee . . . whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.

The Supreme Court held that while Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents might provide grounds for a cause of action the statute provides immunity for Public Health Service employees. However injured plaintiffs may still have a cause of action against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but not against the individuals.