Opinion ID: 4301602
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We may consider whether to extend Bivens.

Text: Before we consider whether Rodriguez has a Bivens cause of action, however, we must address two preliminary issues: jurisdiction and waiver. We previously held that on an 62 Compare Hernandez v. United States, 785 F.3d 117, 135 (5th Cir. 2015) (Prado, J., concurring) with id. at 122–23 (Jones, J., concurring). 63 403 U.S. 388, 389 (1971). RODRIGUEZ V. SWARTZ 23 interlocutory appeal of a denial of qualified immunity, we lacked appellate jurisdiction to decide whether there was a Bivens cause of action.64 Moreover, Swartz did not challenge whether Rodriguez could sue under Bivens until he filed his reply brief on appeal. That would normally constitute a waiver even though the United States addressed the issue in its amicus brief.65 But there is new law to consider. In Hernandez v. Mesa, the Fifth Circuit confronted a cross-border shooting similar to the one here. It held that even if the shooting was unconstitutional, the law was not clearly established at the time.66 It did not decide whether the family of the boy who was shot had a Bivens cause of action.67 In fact, the officer who shot him had not moved to dismiss on that basis.68 Yet the Supreme Court reversed, holding that whether Bivens applied was “‘antecedent’ to the other questions presented.”69 It then remanded the case so that the Fifth Circuit could 64 See, e.g., Sissoko v. Rocha, 440 F.3d 1145, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006), reinstated in relevant part on denial of reh’g en banc, 509 F.3d 947, 948 (9th Cir. 2007). 65 See United States v. Salman, 792 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 2015); Swan v. Peterson, 6 F.3d 1373, 1383 (9th Cir. 1993). 66 See Hernandez v. United States, 785 F.3d 117, 120–21 (5th Cir. 2015) (en banc), vacated and remanded sub nom. Hernandez v. Mesa,