Opinion ID: 4549553
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Religion Claims

Text: The other set of Plaintiffs’ claims arise from their allegation that they were targeted for surveillance solely because of their religion.38 In this part, we discuss Plaintiffs’ (1) First and Fifth Amendment injunctive relief claims against the official-capacity defendants; (2) First and Fifth Amendment Bivens claims against the Agent Defendants; (3) § 1985(3) claims for violations of the Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause, and equal protection guarantee; (4) RFRA claim; (5) Privacy Act claim; and (6) FTCA claims. Our focus throughout is whether there are grounds for dismissal independent of the Government’s invocation of the state secrets privilege.
Injunctive Relief Claims Against the Official- Capacity Defendants Plaintiffs maintain that it violates the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment for the Government to target them for surveillance because of their adherence to and practice of 38 The operative complaint alleges as a factual matter that Plaintiffs were surveilled solely because of their religion. We limit our legal discussion to the facts there alleged. 84 FAZAGA V. WALLS Islam. The Government does not challenge the First and Fifth Amendment claims substantively. It argues only that injunctive relief is unavailable and that litigating the claims is not possible without risking the disclosure of state secrets. We have already concluded that injunctive relief, including expungement, is available under the Constitution where there is a substantively viable challenge to government action, see supra Part III.A, and that dismissal because of the state secrets concern was improper because of the availability of the § 1806(f) procedures, see supra Part II. Accordingly, considering only the arguments put forward by the Government, we conclude that the First and Fifth Amendment claims against the official-capacity defendants may go forward.
Claims Against the Agent Defendants Plaintiffs seek monetary damages directly under the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, relying on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. We will not recognize a Bivens claim where there is “‘any alternative, existing process for protecting’ the plaintiff’s interests.” W. Radio Servs. Co. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 578 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537, 550 (2007)). The existence of such an alternative remedy raises the inference that Congress “‘expected the Judiciary to stay its Bivens hand’ and ‘refrain from providing a new and freestanding remedy in damages.’” Id. (quoting Wilkie, 551 U.S. at 550, 554); see also Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1863; Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 423 FAZAGA V. WALLS 85 (1988). Accordingly, we “refrain[] from creating a judicially implied remedy even when the available statutory remedies ‘do not provide complete relief’ for a plaintiff that has suffered a constitutional violation.” W. Radio Servs., 578 F.3d at 1120 (quoting Malesko, 534 U.S. at 69). As long as “an avenue for some redress” exists, “bedrock principles of separation of powers forclose[s] judicial imposition of a new substantive liability.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Malesko, 534 U.S. at 69). Here, we conclude that the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., taken together, provide an alternative remedial scheme for some, but not all, of Plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment Bivens claims. As to the remaining Bivens claims, we remand to the district court to decide whether a Bivens remedy is available in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Abbasi. As to the collection and maintenance of records, Plaintiffs could have, and indeed did, challenge the FBI’s surveillance of them under the Privacy Act’s remedial scheme. Again, the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, creates a set of rules governing how such records should be kept by federal agencies. See supra Part III.A. Under § 552a(e)(7), an “agency that maintains a system of records shall maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.”39 When an agency fails to comply with 39 The term “maintain” is defined to mean “maintain, collect, use, or disseminate.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(3). 86 FAZAGA V. WALLS § 552a(e)(7), an individual may bring a civil action against the agency for damages. Id. § 552a(g)(1)(D), (g)(4). Thus, § 552a(e)(7) limits the government’s ability to collect, maintain, use, or disseminate information on an individual’s religious activity protected by the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses. We have not addressed the availability of a Bivens action where the Privacy Act may be applicable. But two other circuits have, and both held that the Privacy Act supplants Bivens claims for First and Fifth Amendment violations. See Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697, 707–08 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding, in response to claims alleging harm from the improper disclosure of information subject to the Privacy Act’s protections, that the Privacy Act is a comprehensive remedial scheme that precludes an additional Bivens remedy); Downie v. City of Middleburg Heights, 301 F.3d 688, 696 & n.7 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that the Privacy Act displaces Bivens for claims involving the creation, maintenance, and dissemination of false records by federal agency employees). We agree with the analyses in Wilson and Downie. Although the Privacy Act provides a remedy only against the FBI, not the individual federal officers, the lack of relief against some potential defendants does not disqualify the Privacy Act as an alternative remedial scheme. Again, a Bivens remedy may be foreclosed “even when the available statutory remedies ‘do not provide complete relief’ for a plaintiff,” as long as “the plaintiff ha[s] an avenue for some redress.” W. Radio Servs., 578 F.3d at 1120 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (quoting Malesko, 534 U.S. at 69). Thus, to the extent that Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims involve improper collection and retention of agency records, the Privacy Act precludes such Bivens claims. FAZAGA V. WALLS 87 As to religious discrimination more generally, we conclude that RFRA precludes some, but not all, of Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims. RFRA provides that absent a “compelling governmental interest” and narrow tailoring, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b), the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” Id. § 2000bb- 1(a). The statute was enacted “to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.” Id. § 2000bb(b)(2). It therefore provided that “[a] person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government.” Id. § 2000bb-1(c). RFRA thus provides a means for Plaintiffs to seek relief for the alleged burden of the surveillance itself on their exercise of their religion. RFRA does not, however, provide an alternative remedial scheme for all of Plaintiffs’ discrimination-based Bivens claims. RFRA was enacted in response to Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which, in Congress’s view, “virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(4). Accordingly, “to restore the compelling interest test . . . and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened,” id. § 2000bb(b)(1), RFRA directs its focus on “rule[s] of general applicability” that “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion,” id. § 2000bb-1(a). Here, many of Plaintiffs’ allegations relate not to neutral and generally applicable government action, but to conduct 88 FAZAGA V. WALLS motivated by intentional discrimination against Plaintiffs because of their Muslim faith. Regardless of the magnitude of the burden imposed, “if the object of a law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation, the law is not neutral” and “is invalid unless it is justified by a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to advance that interest.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533 (1993) (emphasis added). It is the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment—not RFRA— that imposes this requirement. Moreover, by its terms, RFRA applies only to the “free exercise of religion,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(1); indeed, it expressly disclaims any effect on “that portion of the First Amendment prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion,” id. § 2000bb-4. But intentional religious discrimination is “subject to heightened scrutiny whether [it] arise[s] under the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, or the Equal Protection Clause.” Colo. Christian Univ. v. Weaver, 534 F.3d 1245, 1266 (10th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiffs have raised religion claims based on all three constitutional provisions. Because RFRA does not provide an alternative remedial scheme for protecting these interests, we conclude that RFRA does not preclude Plaintiffs’ religion-based Bivens claims. We conclude that the Privacy Act and RFRA, taken together, function as an alternative remedial scheme for protecting some, but not all, of the interests Plaintiffs seek to vindicate via their First and Fifth Amendment Bivens claims. The district court never addressed whether a Bivens remedy is available for any of the religion claims because it dismissed the claims in their entirety based on the state secrets privilege. In addition, Abbasi has now clarified the standard for FAZAGA V. WALLS 89 determining when a Bivens remedy is available for a particular alleged constitutional violation. And, as we have explained, the scope of the religion claims to which a Bivens remedy might apply is considerably narrower than those alleged, given the partial displacement by the Privacy Act and RFRA. If asked, the district court should determine on remand, applying Abbasi, whether a Bivens remedy is available to the degree the damages remedy is not displaced by the Privacy Act and RFRA.
Defendants Plaintiffs allege that the Agent Defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights under the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and the due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). To state a violation of § 1985(3), Plaintiffs must “allege and prove four elements”:
depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Local 610 v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 828–29 (1983). The Defendants attack 90 FAZAGA V. WALLS these claims on various grounds, but we reach only one—whether § 1985(3) conspiracies among employees of the same government entity are barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. Abbasi makes clear that intracorporate liability was not clearly established at the time of the events in this case and that the Agent Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity from liability under § 1985(3). See 137 S. Ct. at 1866. In Abbasi, men of Arab and South Asian descent detained in the aftermath of September 11 sued two wardens of the federal detention center in Brooklyn in which they were held, along with several high-level Executive Branch officials who were alleged to have authorized their detention. Id. at 1853. They alleged, among other claims, a conspiracy among the defendants to deprive them of the equal protection of the laws under § 1985(3).40 Id. at 1853–54. Abbasi held that, even assuming these allegations to be “true and well pleaded,” the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1985(3) claim. Id. at 1866–67. It was not “clearly established” at the time, the Court held, that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine did not bar § 1985(3) liability for employees of the same government department who conspired among themselves. Id. at 1867–68. “[T]he fact that the courts are divided as to whether or not a § 1985(3) conspiracy can arise from official discussions between or among agents of the same entity demonstrates that the law on the point is not well established.” Id. at 1868. “[R]easonable 40 Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that these officials “conspired with one another to hold respondents in harsh conditions because of their actual or apparent race, religion, or national origin.” Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. at 1854. FAZAGA V. WALLS 91 officials in petitioners’ positions would not have known, and could not have predicted, that § 1985(3) prohibited their joint consultations.” Id. at 1867. The Court declined, however, to resolve the issue on the merits. Id. Abbasi controls. Although the underlying facts here differ from those in Abbasi, the dispositive issue here, as in Abbasi, is whether the Agent Defendants could reasonably have known that agreements entered into or agreed-upon policies devised with other employees of the FBI could subject them to conspiracy liability under § 1985(3). At the time Plaintiffs allege they were surveilled, neither this court nor the Supreme Court had held that an intracorporate agreement could subject federal officials to liability under § 1985(3), and the circuits that had decided the issue were split.41 There was therefore, as in Abbasi, no clearly established law on the question. As the Agent Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1985(3) allegations in the complaint, we affirm their dismissal on that ground. 41 Two circuits have held that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine does not extend to civil rights cases. See Brever v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 40 F.3d 1119, 1127 (10th Cir. 1994); Novotny v. Great Am. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 584 F.2d 1235, 1257–58 (3d Cir. 1978) (en banc), vacated on other grounds, 442 U.S. 366 (1979); see also Stathos v. Bowden, 728 F.2d 15, 20–21 (1st Cir. 1984) (expressing “doubt” that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine extends to conspiracy under § 1985(3)). The majority of the circuits have reached a contrary result. See Hartline v. Gallo, 546 F.3d 95, 99 n.3 (2d Cir. 2008); Meyers v. Starke, 420 F.3d 738, 742 (8th Cir. 2005); Dickerson v. Alachua Cty. Comm’n, 200 F.3d 761, 767–68 (11th Cir. 2000); Benningfield v. City of Houston, 157 F.3d 369, 378 (5th Cir. 1998); Wright v. Ill. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 40 F.3d 1492, 1508 (7th Cir. 1994); Hull v. Cuyahoga Valley Joint Vocational Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 926 F.2d 505, 509–10 (6th Cir. 1991); Buschi v. Kirven, 775 F.2d 1240, 1252–53 (4th Cir. 1985). 92 FAZAGA V. WALLS D. Religious Freedom Restoration Act Claim Against the Agent Defendants and Government Defendants Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, by substantially burdening Plaintiffs’ exercise of religion, and did so neither in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest nor by adopting the least restrictive means of furthering any such interest. The Government Defendants offer no argument for dismissal of the RFRA claim other than the state secrets privilege. The Agent Defendants, however, contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the RFRA claim because Plaintiffs failed to plead a substantial burden on their religion, and if they did so plead, no clearly established law supported that conclusion at the relevant time.42 To establish a prima facie claim under RFRA, a plaintiff must “present evidence sufficient to allow a trier of fact rationally to find the existence of two elements.” Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). “First, the activities the plaintiff claims are 42 The parties do not dispute that qualified immunity is an available defense to a RFRA claim. We therefore assume it is. See Padilla v. Yoo, 678 F.3d 748, 768 (9th Cir. 2012); Lebron v. Rumsfeld, 670 F.3d 540, 560 (4th Cir. 2012). Tidwell and Walls also contend that Plaintiffs’ RFRA claim was properly dismissed because RFRA does not permit damages suits against individual-capacity defendants. Because we affirm dismissal on another ground, we do not reach that issue. We note, however, that at least two other circuits have held that damages are available for RFRA suits against individual-capacity defendants. See Tanvir v. Tanzin, 894 F.3d 449, 467 (2d Cir. 2018); Mack v. Warden Loretto FCI, 839 F.3d 286, 302 (3d Cir. 2016). FAZAGA V. WALLS 93 burdened by the government action must be an ‘exercise of religion.’” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a)). “Second, the government action must ‘substantially burden’ the plaintiff’s exercise of religion.” Id. Once a plaintiff has established those elements, “the burden of persuasion shifts to the government to prove that the challenged government action is in furtherance of a ‘compelling governmental interest’ and is implemented by ‘the least restrictive means.’” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b)). “Under RFRA, a ‘substantial burden’ is imposed only when individuals are forced to choose between following the tenets of their religion and receiving a governmental benefit . . . or coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs by the threat of civil or criminal sanctions . . . .” Id. at 1069–70; see also Oklevueha Native Am. Church of Haw., Inc. v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2016). An effect on an individual’s “subjective, emotional religious experience” does not constitute a substantial burden, Navajo Nation, 535 F.3d at 1070, nor does “a government action that decreases the spirituality, the fervor, or the satisfaction with which a believer practices his religion,” id. at 1063. Plaintiffs do allege that they altered their religious practices as a result of the FBI’s surveillance: Malik trimmed his beard, stopped regularly wearing a skull cap, decreased his attendance at the mosque, and became less welcoming to newcomers than he believes his religion requires. AbdelRahim “significantly decreased his attendance to mosque,” limited his donations to mosque institutions, and became less welcoming to newcomers than he believes his religion requires. Fazaga, who provided counseling at the mosque as an imam and an intern therapist, stopped 94 FAZAGA V. WALLS counseling congregants at the mosque because he feared the conversations would be monitored and thus not confidential. But it was not clearly established in 2006 or 2007 that covert surveillance conducted on the basis of religion would meet the RFRA standards for constituting a substantial religious burden on individual congregants. There simply was no case law in 2006 or 2007 that would have put the Agent Defendants on notice that covert surveillance on the basis of religion could violate RFRA. And at least two cases from our circuit could be read to point in the opposite direction, though they were brought under the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses rather than under RFRA. See Vernon v. City of Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1994); Presbyterian Church, 870 F.2d at 527.43 Presbyterian Church concerned an undercover investigation by INS of the sanctuary movement. 870 F.2d at 520. Over nearly a year, several INS agents infiltrated four churches in Arizona, attending and secretly recording church services. Id. The covert surveillance was later publicly disclosed in the course of criminal proceedings against individuals involved with the sanctuary movement. Id. The four churches brought suit, alleging a violation of their right to free exercise of religion. Id. We held that the individual 43 Presbyterian Church predates Employment Division v. Smith, which declined to use the compelling interest test from Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963). Smith, 494 U.S. at 883–85. The other case, Vernon, postdates RFRA, which in 1993 restored Sherbert’s compelling interest test. See 27 F.3d at 1393 n.1; see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b). Although the compelling interest balancing test was in flux during this period, the notion that a burden on religious practice was required to state a claim was not. RFRA continued the same substantial burden standard as was required by the constitutional cases. See Vernon, 27 F.3d at 1393. FAZAGA V. WALLS 95 INS agents named as defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because there was “no support in the preexisting case law” to suggest that “it must have been apparent to INS officials that undercover electronic surveillance of church services without a warrant and without probable cause violated the churches’ clearly established rights under the First . . . Amendment[].” Id. at 527. In Vernon, the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) investigated Vernon, the Assistant Chief of Police of the LAPD, in response to allegations that Vernon’s religious beliefs had interfered with his ability or willingness to fairly perform his official duties. 27 F.3d at 1389. Vernon filed a § 1983 action, maintaining that the preinvestigation activities and the investigation itself violated the Free Exercise Clause. Id. at 1390. In his complaint, Vernon alleged that the investigation “chilled [him] in the exercise of his religious beliefs, fearing that he can no longer worship as he chooses, consult with his ministers and the elders of his church, participate in Christian fellowship and give public testimony to his faith without severe consequences.” Id. at 1394. We held that Vernon failed to demonstrate a substantial burden on his religious observance and so affirmed the district court’s dismissal of his free exercise claim. Id. at 1395. We noted that Vernon “failed to show any concrete and demonstrable injury.” Id. “Vernon complain[ed] that the existence of a government investigation has discouraged him from pursuing his personal religious beliefs and practices—in other words, mere subjective chilling effects with neither ‘a claim of specific present objective harm [n]or a threat of specific future harm.’” Id. (quoting Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 14 (1972)). 96 FAZAGA V. WALLS Vernon and Presbyterian Church were decided before the surveillance Plaintiffs allege substantially burdened their exercise of religion. Both cases cast doubt upon whether surveillance such as that alleged here constitutes a substantial burden upon religious practice. There is no pertinent case law indicating otherwise. It was therefore not clearly established in 2006 or 2007 that Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiffs’ freedom of religion, protected by RFRA.44 As to the Agent Defendants, therefore, we affirm the dismissal of the RFRA claim. But because the Government Defendants are not subject to the same qualified immunity analysis and made no arguments in support of dismissing the RFRA claim other than the state secrets privilege, we hold that the complaint substantively states a RFRA claim against the Government Defendants.45 44 These cases may not, however, entitle the Agent Defendants to qualified immunity as to claims involving intentional discrimination based on Plaintiffs’ religion. As we noted, see supra Part IV.B, we are not deciding whether there is an available Bivens action for those claims. As we decline to anticipate whether Plaintiffs will pursue their Bivens claims on the religious discrimination issues and, if so, whether the claims will be allowed to go forward, we leave any surviving qualified immunity issue for the district court to decide in the first instance. 45 We do not address any other defenses the Government Defendants may raise before the district court in response to Plaintiffs’ RFRA claim. FAZAGA V. WALLS 97 E. Privacy Act Claim Against the FBI Plaintiffs allege that the FBI violated the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(7),46 by collecting and maintaining records describing how Plaintiffs exercised their First Amendment rights. As a remedy, Plaintiffs seek only injunctive relief ordering the destruction or return of unlawfully obtained information. Cell Associates, Inc. v. National Institutes of Health, 579 F.2d 1155 (9th Cir. 1978), which interpreted the scope of Privacy Act remedies, precludes such injunctive relief. The “Civil remedies” section of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g), lists four types of agency misconduct and the remedies applicable to each. The statute expressly provides that injunctive relief is available when an agency improperly denies a request to amend or disclose an individual’s record, see 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(A), (2)(A), (1)(B), (3)(A), but provides only for damages when the agency “fails to maintain any record” with the “accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness” required for fairness, id. § 552a(g)(1)(C), or if the agency “fails to comply with any other provision” of the Privacy Act, id. § 552a(g)(1)(D). See id. § 552a(g)(4). Cell Associates concluded that this distinction was purposeful—that is, that Congress intended to limit the availability of injunctive relief to the categories of agency 46 The header to Plaintiffs’ Eighth Cause of Action reads broadly, “Violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)–(l).” As actually pleaded and briefed, however, the substance of Plaintiffs’ Privacy Act claim is limited to § 552a(e)(7). The complaint states that “Defendant FBI . . . collected and maintained records . . . in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(7).” And Plaintiffs’ reply brief states that they “seek expungement . . . under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(7).” 98 FAZAGA V. WALLS misconduct for which injunctive relief was specified as a remedy: The addition of a right to injunctive relief for one type of violation, coupled with the failure to provide injunctive relief for another type of violation, suggests that Congress knew what it was about and intended the remedies specified in the Act to be exclusive. While the right to damages might seem an inadequate safeguard against unwarranted disclosures of agency records, we think it plain that Congress limited injunctive relief to the situations described in 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(A) and (2) and (1)(B) and (3). 579 F.2d at 1161. A violation of § 552a(e)(7) falls within the catch-all remedy provision, applicable if the agency “fails to comply with any other provision” of the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(D). As the statute does not expressly provide for injunctive relief for a violation of this catch-all provision, Cell Associates precludes injunctive relief for a violation of § 552a(e)(7). Plaintiffs attempt to avoid the precedential impact of Cell Associates on the ground that it “nowhere mentions Section 552a(e)(7).” That is so, but the holding of Cell Associates nonetheless applies directly to this case. The Privacy Act specifies that injunctive relief is available for violations of some provisions of the Act, but not for a violation of § 552a(e)(7). Under Cell Associates, Plaintiffs cannot obtain FAZAGA V. WALLS 99 injunctive relief except for violations as to which such relief is specifically permitted.47 Plaintiffs’ complaint expressly provides that “[t]he FBI is sued for injunctive relief only.” Accordingly, because their sole requested remedy is unavailable, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Privacy Act. F. FTCA Claims The FTCA constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). “State substantive law applies” in FTCA actions. Liebsack v. United States, 731 F.3d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 2013). If an individual federal employee is sued, the United States shall, given certain conditions are satisfied, “be substituted as the party defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1). Plaintiffs allege that the United States is liable under the FTCA for invasion of privacy under California law, violation of the California constitutional right to privacy, violation of California Civil Code § 52.1, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We first consider Defendants’ jurisdictional arguments, and then discuss their implications for the substantive FTCA claims. 47 Plaintiffs also argue that MacPherson v. IRS, 803 F.2d 479 (9th Cir. 1986) is “binding Ninth Circuit authority . . . [that] makes clear that courts have authority to order expungement of records maintained in violation of its [§ 552a(e)(7)] requirements.” But MacPherson does not state whether the plaintiff there sought injunctive relief and so is unclear on this point. 100 FAZAGA V. WALLS
The FTCA’s judgment bar provides that “[t]he judgment in an action under [the FTCA] shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 2676. The judgment bar provision has no application here. The judgment bar provision precludes claims against individual defendants in two circumstances: (1) where a plaintiff brings an FTCA claim against the government and non-FTCA claims against individual defendants in the same action and obtains a judgment against the government, see Kreines v. United States, 959 F.2d 834, 838 (9th Cir. 1992); and (2) where the plaintiff brings an FTCA claim against the government, judgment is entered in favor of either party, and the plaintiff then brings a subsequent non-FTCA action against individual defendants, see Gasho v. United States, 39 F.3d 1420, 1437–38 (9th Cir. 1994); Ting v. United States, 927 F.2d 1504, 1513 n.10 (9th Cir. 1991). The purposes of this judgment bar are “to prevent dual recoveries,” Kreines, 959 F.2d at 838, to “serve[] the interests of judicial economy,” and to “foster more efficient settlement of claims,” by “encourag[ing plaintiffs] to pursue their claims concurrently in the same action, instead of in separate actions,” Gasho, 39 F.3d at 1438. Neither of those two circumstances, nor their attendant risks, is present here. Plaintiffs brought their FTCA claim, necessarily, against the United States, and their non-FTCA claims against the Agent Defendants, in the same action. They have not obtained a judgment against the government. Kreines held that “an FTCA judgment in favor of the FAZAGA V. WALLS 101 government did not bar the Bivens claim [against individual employees] when the judgments are ‘contemporaneous’ and part of the same action.” Gasho, 39 F.3d at 1437 (quoting Kreines, 959 F.2d at 838). By “contemporaneous,” Kreines did not require that judgments on the FTCA and other claims be entered simultaneously, but rather that they result from the same action. The FTCA’s judgment bar does not operate to preclude Plaintiffs’ claims against the Agent Defendants.
The discretionary function exception provides that the FTCA shall not apply to “[a]ny claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, . . . or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). “[T]he discretionary function exception will not apply when a federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow.” Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 536 (1988). “[G]overnmental conduct cannot be discretionary if it violates a legal mandate.” Galvin v. Hay, 374 F.3d 739, 758 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996, 1002 (9th Cir. 2000)). Moreover, “the Constitution can limit the discretion of federal officials such that the FTCA’s discretionary function exception will not apply.” Id. (quoting Nurse, 226 F.3d at 1002 n.2). 102 FAZAGA V. WALLS We cannot determine the applicability of the discretionary function exception at this stage in the litigation. If, on remand, the district court determines that Defendants did not violate any federal constitutional or statutory directives, the discretionary function exception will bar Plaintiffs’ FTCA claims.48 But if the district court instead determines that Defendants did violate a nondiscretionary federal constitutional or statutory directive, the FTCA claims may be able to proceed to that degree. Because applicability of the discretionary function will largely turn on the district court’s ultimate resolution of the merits of Plaintiffs’ various federal constitutional and statutory claims, discussing whether Plaintiffs substantively state claims as to the state laws underlying the FTCA claim would be premature. We therefore decline to do so at this juncture.