RULE: If Cong says alternative is exclusive, maybe can’t check for adequacy. Hui.
RULE: No, court will examine for adequacy; state remedy “adequate” if comparable incentives/compensation. Minneci.
*RULE: Bivens remedy not avail for suing fed agencies, just fed officers. FDIC v. Meyer (1994).
*RULE: Bivens remedy not avail if you haven’t exhausted admin remedies. Corr’l Services Corp v. Malesko (2001).
*RULE: Bivens remedy not avail if you haven’t exhausted admin (even if the agency is harassing you). Wilkie v. Robbins (2007).
*BFTA: SCOTUS usually finds a remedy when private actors serving public functions (like private prisons)
V. Allocation of Cases Between State and Federal Court
A. Diversity Jurisdiction
*def “bias”: make a decision based on something other than the merits
*BFTA: skeptical that there’s a fair way to fairly split cases between fed and state court
*RULE: must have complete diversity: every P must be from different state from every D. Kroger.
*RULE: citizenship is based on RPIA: real party in interest: does party have anything at stake, a duty or responsibility? Rose v. Giammati (S.D. Ohio1989). H: FDC has jur where RPIA is the comm’r (NY), not MLB (OH + every state).
V-1. Pick Both Courts: Abstention and Certification
*BFTA: Either-Or problem not a problem! Either end up in fed court via appeal, or can have both (via cert, double-track, etc).
A. Pullman Abstention
*RULE: in case with Fed Q + state claims, fed ct should abstain (stay proceedings and let state court go first) if there is (i) a novel or unsettled issue of state law, (ii) and resolving it allows const’l avoidance. Pullman (1941).
TA: If state interprets st claim to let fed claim through: carry on. If state blocks: fed ct resumes to see if state law unconst’l.