N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PHILLIP C AM ILLO-AM ISANO,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. FEDER AL B U R EAU OF PR ISONS; e t a l., De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-55038 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-06634-ODW -JDE
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

16, 2023 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PAEZ, C HR ISTEN, a nd M ILLER , C i rc uit Judge s. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt Phillip C am illo-Am isa no a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing with pre judic e his p ro se c om

pla int a lle ging se ve ra l c o nstitutiona l
c la im s a ga inst B ure a

u of Prison (B OP) e m

ploy e e s an d

se e king da

m a ge s pursua

nt to Biv e ns v . Six

Unk now n N ame d Age nts of the

Fe de ral Bure a u of N

arc otic s , 403 

# F IL ED MAR 28 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.U.S. 388 (1971). B e c a use the p artie s a

re fam i lia r with thefa c t s of this c a se , we do not re c ite the m

he re . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we
a ffirm
. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing a prisone r’ s c om

pla int unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A. Mangiarac ina v
. Pe nzone , 849 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th C ir. 2017). Dism

i ssa l pursua

nt to § 1915A “ inc o rporate s the fam ilia r sta nda rd
a pplie d in the c onte x t of fa ilure to sta te a c la im unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d ure 12(b)(6).” W

i lhe lm v . Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th C ir. 2012). B ut pro se

c om pla ints a re c onstrue d libe ra lly

and m ay be dism isse d only

“ if it
a ppe ars be y ond doubt tha

t the pla intiff c an prove no se t of fa c ts in support of his
c la im tha t would e ntitle him

to re lie f.” N

ordstrom v . Ry a n , 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting W

ilhe lm v . Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th C i r. 2012)). W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s ruling tha t C am i llo-Am isa

no’ s c om pla int fa ils to sta te a c l a im be c a use he se e k s only

dam a g e s, a

n d a B iv e ns c l a im

is una va ila ble for the ha rm s a lle ge d in his c om

pla int. B e c a

use C am illo-Am isa

no c onc e d e s tha

t his c la i m s pre se nt ne w Biv e n s c onte xts, the issue on a ppe a l is whe the r the re are any

“ spe c ia l fa c tors” indic a ting tha t the judic ia

ry “ is a t le a st a rgua bly le ss e quippe d tha n C ongre ss to ‘ we igh the c osts a nd be ne fits of a l lowing a

dam a g e s a c tion to proc e e d.’ ” Egbe rt v . Boule , 142 S. C t. 1793, 1803 (2022) (quoting Ziglar v
. 2Abbasi , 582 U.S. 120, 136 (2017)). Though the c om pla i nt a l le ge s re p re he nsible
c onduc t, the Supre m e C ourt’ s de c ision in Egbe r t v . Boule e sta blishe s tha

t at le a st
one “ spe c ia l fa c tor” fore c lose s a Biv e ns c la im he re : the B OP’ s Adm inistra tive R e m e dy Program provide d C a

m illo-Am isa

no a c c e s s to a

n a lte rna tive re m e dia l struc ture for e a c h of his c la im s. Se e 142 S. C t. at 1804, 1806–07; 28 C .F.R
. §§ 542.10, 542.15. Through tha t progra m , C am illo-Am isa

no c ould se e k “ form a l
re vie w of a

n issue re lating to a

ny a spe c t of his[] own c o nfine m e n t,” 28 C .F.R . § 542.10(a ), and by

pa ss individua

l offic e rs by filing grie va

nc e s dire c t ly

with the R e giona l Dire c tor if he fe a re d re ta lia tion, id. § 542.14(d). In Egbe rt , the Supre m e C ourt sta te d tha t “ a c ourt m ay

not fa shion a Biv e ns re m e dy if C o ngre ss a lre a dy

ha s provide d, or ha s a

uthoriz e d the Exe c utive to provide , ‘ an a lte rna t ive re m e dia l struc ture .’ ” 142 S. C t. at 1804 (quoting Ziglar , 582 U.S. a t 137). If suc h

a struc ture is in pla c e , “ ‘ that a lone ,’ like any

spe c ia l fa c tor, is re a s on e nough to ‘ lim it the p owe r of the Judic ia

ry to infe r a ne w Biv e ns c a use of a c tion.’ ” Id. (quoting Ziglar , 582 U.S. a

t 137); se ealso C

orr. Se rv s. C orp. v . Male

s k o , 534 U.S. 61, 74 (2001). C am illo-Am isa

no a rgue s the Adm inistra

t ive R e m e dy

Program is ina d e quate be c a use it doe s not provide for dam a ge s a nd B OP e m

ploy e e s inte rfe re d with his
a bility to use it, but a

n a lte rna tive re m e dia l struc ture fore c lose s a Biv e n s c la i m e ve n 3if it “ do[e s] not providec om ple te re lie f.” Egbe rt , 142 S. C t . at 1804 (quoting Bush
v . Luc as , 462 U.S. 367, 388 (1983)). In E gbe rt , the Supre m e C ourt e m pha siz e d that “ [s] o long a s C ongre ss or the Exe c utive ha s c re at e d a re m e dia l proc e ss tha t it finds suffic ie n t to se c ure an a de quate le v e l of de te rre nc e , the c ourts c annot se c ondgue ss tha t c a libra t ion.” Id. a t 1807. “ [T] h e que stion whe the r a give n re m e dy

is
a de quate is a

le gisla tive de te rm ination tha

t m ust be le ft to C ongre ss, not thefe de ra l
c ourts.” Id. W e the re fore hold thedistric t c ourt c orre c t ly de te rm ine d tha

t the Adm inistra

tive R e m e d

y Program fore c lose d re c o gniz ing a Biv e ns c la im for any of C am i llo-Am isa

no’ s a l le gations. AFFIRM E D.

4