Court Opinion

ID: 9807047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 19:44:48.669223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:20:37.271444
License: Public Domain

JAMES E. GRAVES, JR., Circuit Judge,
concurring in part:
I agree with the majority that the Fifth Amendment right was not clearly estab*143lished at the time of the incident. But I also join, in part, the concurring opinion of Judge Prado, except to the extent that it adopts the en banc court’s reasons for denying the Fourth Amendment claim. Additionally, I join, in part, Judges Dennis and Haynes in concluding that the plaintiffs’ claims under the Fourth Amendment and the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) have force. However, I disagree with the conclusions of Judges Dennis and Haynes that this court should forego the adjudication of such claims.14 Instead, I would conclude that this court should carefully adjudicate the ATS and Fourth Amendment claims. See Sosa, 542 U.S. at 712-13, 724-26, 124 S.Ct. 2739; and 28 U.S.C. § 1350. For these reasons, I respectfully concur with the majority opinion in part and join the separate opinions of Judges Dennis, Prado and Haynes in part.

. I also disagree with Judge Haynes' concurrence to the extent that it lists various other forms of review or redress which are, for the most part, unavailable, ineffective, or do not provide the same relief as a Bivens action.