Vega v. United States, No. 13-35311 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action alleging violations of plaintiff's First and Fifth Amendment rights under the implied cause of action theory adopted by the Supreme Court in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), as well as state law claims. Neither the Supreme Court nor this court have expanded Bivens in the context of a prisoner's First Amendment access to court or Fifth Amendment procedural due process claims arising out of a prison disciplinary process, and the circumstances of plaintiff's case against private defendants plainly presented a "new context" under Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1854 (2017). The panel also held that plaintiff had alternative means for relief against the alleged violations of his First and Fifth Amendment rights by the private defendants. In a memorandum opinion, the panel addressed plaintiff's remaining arguments.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a former prisoner’s putative claims brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that private employees of a residential reentry center violated his First Amendment right to court access and his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process. The panel declined to expand Bivens to include plaintiff’s First and Fifth Amendment claims against private employees of a residential reentry center. The panel held that because neither the Supreme Court nor this Court have expanded Bivens in the context of a prisoner’s First Amendment access to court or Fifth Amendment procedural due process claims arising out of a prison disciplinary process, the circumstances of plaintiff’s case against private defendants plainly presented a “new context” under Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1854 (2017). The panel held that
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.