- Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
- Area(s) of Law: Qualified Immunity
- Date Filed: 11-14-2022
- Case #: 21-56282
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Freudenthal, D.J. for the Court; Tashima, C.J.; & Lee, C.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner brought a cause of action against Appellant arising from an incident where Appellant, a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) officer, shot Petitioner while attempting to apprehend Petitioner for evading a BLM officer off-roads at dangerous speeds. Appellant assigned error to the denial of his motion for summary judgement. On appeal, Appellant argued this case would expand Bivens because it was a new context and Petitioner had other remedies available to them. In response, Petitioner argued there was not enough guidance on determining what a new context is under Bivens and that the context in this case was not new. Under Bivens, petitioners have “an implied damages remedy” when federal officers perform an unreasonable search and seizure. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Egbert, limited the availability of a Bivens cause of action in "new contexts" if there is, “[A]ny rational reason ... to think that Congress is better suited to weigh the costs and benefits” is enough to preclude extending Bivens." Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1805 (2022). The Court reasoned this was a "new context" because it involved BLM officers and the incident happened on public lands where Petitioner did not have an expectation of privacy. Petitioner also had other remedies available. Accordingly, the Court found that this would amount to expanding a cause of action under Bivens, which is a legislative duty so the district could should have entered summary judgment for Appellant. Vacated and remanded.