Plaintiff's 8A claim appropriately preserved when 1A claim was screened out, as the screening operated as an interlocutory order, and the underlying facts of the claim established the 8A claim.
A Bivens remedy for not protecting a prisoner is unavailable, as the only Supreme Court precedent recognizing the claim was sub silento; it's therefore a novel claim, and the existing statutory and administrative scheme suffices to establish that Congress might think itself best placed to resolve the procedures.
DISSENT:
Sub silento Supreme Court holding suffices, given the facts of the case and lower courts' recognition of it. Even absent that, it's not a new context, and no special factors counsel against recognition of the judicial remedy. Bivens grounded in constitutional necessity.