Court Opinion

ID: 9907945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 17:00:55.957413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:16:21.875269
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-4071     Document: 010110964588     Date Filed: 12/07/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                FILED
                                                                    United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       December 7, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  MICHAEL A. BACON,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                         No. 23-4071
                                                   (D.C. No. 2:21-CV-00701-HCN)
  DERRIK MARSHALL; JUDICIAL                                   (D. Utah)
  SUPERVISION SERVICES,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Michael Bacon, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing

 his complaint for failure to state a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

 of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), or 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Because

 Bacon waived appellate review by failing to challenge much of the district court’s

       *
          After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a);
 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
        1
          We liberally construe Bacon’s pro se filings, but we will not act as his
 advocate. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir.
 2005).
Appellate Case: 23-4071    Document: 010110964588        Date Filed: 12/07/2023       Page: 2

 order and because the district court correctly determined that Bacon’s allegations

 constitute a new Bivens context with at least one special factor counseling against

 extending that remedy, we affirm.

                                      Background

       Bacon alleges that various John Does, Derrik Marshall (his federal probation

 officer), and Judicial Supervision Services (JSS, a private contractor that collects

 urine samples for probation services) violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth,

 Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In particular,

 Bacon alleges that Marshall held a grudge against him because of his involvement in

 a prior lawsuit that made it more difficult for the government to protect the identity

 of its cooperators.2 According to Bacon, Marshall said that he would make sure

 Bacon had a “difficult time” and “would not be fair with [Bacon].” R. 51

 (capitalization standardized). Bacon further alleges that Marshall caused him to

 become homeless and then had him arrested because he was homeless. He also

 alleges that Marshall fabricated probation violations as pretext for Bacon’s arrest and

 lied to a magistrate judge about Bacon’s conduct so that Bacon would remain

       2
          This allegation is presumably related to proceedings in which Bacon sought
 to unseal the supplement to his plea agreement because it stated that he had not
 cooperated with the government. See United States v. Bacon, 950 F.3d 1286, 1290
 (10th Cir. 2020). The district court refused to unseal the supplement, citing a local
 rule requiring all plea supplements be sealed to create “uniformity,” ostensibly to
 protect the identity of cooperators. Id. (quoting R. vol. 1, 45). On appeal, we vacated
 and remanded the district court’s decision after concluding that it plainly erred by
 ignoring the common-law presumption of access to judicial records and failing to
 make case-specific findings to support sealing. Id. at 1293, 1297.
                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-4071    Document: 010110964588       Date Filed: 12/07/2023      Page: 3

 incarcerated. In addition, Bacon alleges that JSS, with Marshall’s approval,

 committed “a form of sexual assault and a form of rape” when it forced him to

 remove his clothing before providing a urine sample. Id. at 53 (capitalization

 standardized).

       A magistrate judge screened Bacon’s in forma pauperis (IFP) complaint under

 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and recommended dismissing it sua sponte for failure to

 state a claim. The magistrate judge determined that because Bacon alleged defendants

 acted under color of federal law, not state law, his claims were properly brought

 under Bivens, not § 1983. And the magistrate judge further recommended dismissing

 those Bivens claims because (1) Bacon’s allegations that Marshall committed perjury

 to revoke Bacon’s supervised release constituted a new Bivens context not previously

 recognized by the Supreme Court and (2) Bacon’s ability to bring suit against

 Marshall under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2674, and the

 “potential interference with the important work of supervising officers” counseled

 against extending the Bivens remedy. R. 128. The magistrate judge also concluded

 that Bacon’s Bivens claims against JSS—a private entity acting under color of federal

 law—was precluded by Supreme Court precedent declining to extend the Bivens

 remedy to actions against private federal contractors. See Corr. Servs. Corp. v.

 Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 66 (2001).

       The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in

 its entirety over Bacon’s objections. And it later denied Bacon’s reconsideration

 motion, reiterating that Bacon could not rely on § 1983 to sue JSS or any individual

                                            3
Appellate Case: 23-4071    Document: 010110964588        Date Filed: 12/07/2023      Page: 4

 defendants because he alleged no facts to support the proposition that defendants had

 acted under color of state law. The district court also noted Bacon failed to state a

 claim under the FTCA because he had not presented his claims to the appropriate

 federal agency first.

       Bacon appeals.

                                        Analysis

       “We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss an IFP complaint

 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.” Kay v. Bemis, 500

 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). “In determining whether a dismissal is proper, we

 must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and construe those allegations,

 and any reasonable inferences that might be drawn from them, in the light most

 favorable to the plaintiff.” Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 2002).

 “Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is

 obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be

 futile to give him an opportunity to amend.” Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278, 1281

 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corrs., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th

 Cir. 1999)).

       On appeal, Bacon asserts simply that he should be able to sue Marshall and

 JSS, but he does nothing to develop that position. At best, he seeks to incorporate by

 reference the arguments he raised below, which we do not permit. See Fed. R. App.

 P. 28.3(B) (stating that “[i]ncorporating by reference portions of lower court or

 agency briefs or pleadings is disapproved and does not satisfy” our briefing

                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-4071    Document: 010110964588         Date Filed: 12/07/2023     Page: 5

 requirements). Bacon has therefore waived any challenge to most of the district

 court’s rulings, including that his § 1983 claims fail for lack of state action and that

 his Bivens claim against JSS is barred by binding Supreme Court precedent. See

 United States v. Fisher, 805 F.3d 982, 990–91 (10th Cir. 2015) (finding arguments

 waived through inadequate appellate briefing). The only argument even passingly

 developed in Bacon’s brief is his position that the district court erred in holding that

 the FTCA provided an alternative remedy counseling against extending Bivens to his

 claims against Marshall, so this is the only argument we will consider here.

       In Bivens, the Supreme Court recognized a cause of action against federal

 officials for alleged Fourth Amendment violations. See Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S.

 482, 490 (2022). And “[o]ver the following decade, the Court twice again fashioned

 new causes of action under the Constitution—first, for a former congressional

 staffer’s Fifth Amendment sex-discrimination claim; and second, for a federal

 prisoner’s inadequate-care claim under the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 490–91

 (citations omitted). However, “[s]ince these cases, the Court has not implied

 additional causes of action under the Constitution.” Id. at 491.

       The Supreme Court has instructed that when faced with Bivens claims, lower

 courts should engage in a two-step inquiry, as the district court did here. The first

 question is whether the case presents a new context in that it is “‘meaningful[ly]’

 different from the three cases in which the Court has implied a damages action.” Id.

 at 492 (alteration in original) (quoting Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 139 (2017)).

 “Second, if a claim arises in a new context, a Bivens remedy is unavailable if there

                                             5
Appellate Case: 23-4071     Document: 010110964588         Date Filed: 12/07/2023      Page: 6

 are ‘special factors’ indicating that the [j]udiciary is at least arguably less equipped

 than Congress to ‘weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to

 proceed.’” Id. (quoting Ziglar, 582 U.S. at 136). Moreover, the Supreme Court has

 explained “those [two] steps often resolve to a single question: whether there is any

 reason to think that Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy.”

 Id.

        Here, the district court concluded that Bacon’s allegations that Marshall

 committed perjury to revoke Bacon’s supervised release were “different in a

 meaningful way from previous Bivens cases” because he did not allege unreasonable

 search and seizure, sex discrimination, or deliberate indifference to medical needs.

 R. 128; see also Ziglar, 582 U.S. at 139. Bacon does not purport to challenge the

 conclusion that this is a new Bivens context, and other circuits have held as much in

 similar circumstances. See Xi v. Haugen, 68 F.4th 824, 834 (3d Cir. 2023) (finding

 new context where plaintiff “allege[d] that federal agents made false statements and

 material omissions of exculpatory evidence that led the [g]overnment to investigate,

 arrest, and prosecute him”); Cantú v. Moody, 933 F.3d 414, 423 (5th Cir. 2019)

 (finding new context where plaintiff alleged that officers “falsified affidavits”).

 Given Bacon’s waiver of this issue and this persuasive circuit authority, we agree

 with the district court that this is a new Bivens context.

        As to special factors counseling hesitation before expanding Bivens to this new

 context, we recently observed that “expanding Bivens is not just ‘a disfavored

 judicial activity,’ it is an action that is impermissible in virtually all circumstances.”

                                              6
Appellate Case: 23-4071     Document: 010110964588        Date Filed: 12/07/2023     Page: 7

 Silva v. United States, 45 F.4th 1134, 1140 (10th Cir. 2022) (quoting Ziglar, 582 U.S.

 at 135). A court will not expand Bivens if “Congress is better positioned to create

 remedies in the” new context at hand or if “the [g]overnment already has provided

 alternative remedies that protect plaintiffs.” Id. at 1141. Here, the district court found

 that both special factors applied, reasoning that Congress was better equipped to

 create remedies in this context because of the “potential interference with the

 important work of supervising officers” and that the FTCA provided an alternative

 remedy.

        On appeal, Bacon purports to challenge only the latter ruling. But even if we

 were to agree with him that the FTCA is not an alternative remedy counseling against

 extending Bivens, that would not be reason enough to reverse. The district court’s

 concern about Congress being better suited to create a remedy to avoid interfering

 with the work of probation officers is sufficient, standing alone, to counsel against

 expanding Bivens. See Silva, 45 F.4th at 1141; Carvajal v. United States, No. 20-CV-

 567, 2021 WL 2814883, at *4–5 (N.D. Tex. May 11, 2021) (unpublished)

 (“Supervision-based Bivens claims like this . . . could possibly interfere with the

 difficult responsibilities of probation officers.”), report and recommendation

 adopted, 2021 WL 2808966 (N.D. Tex. July 6, 2021) (unpublished). And Bacon

 waived any argument to the contrary by not making one in his brief. So we conclude

 that this case, like “virtually all” new Bivens contexts, is not appropriate for

 extending the Bivens remedy. Silva, 45 F.4th at 1140. We accordingly affirm the

 district court’s dismissal order.

                                             7
Appellate Case: 23-4071    Document: 010110964588       Date Filed: 12/07/2023    Page: 8

       As a final matter, we grant Bacon’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal and deny

 his motion asking for an order directing his prison to provide him with certain legal

 documents.

                                      Conclusion

       We affirm the district court’s order dismissing Bacon’s complaint with

 prejudice because he failed to state a claim under Bivens or § 1983, grant his IFP

 motion, and deny his motion for documents.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Nancy L. Moritz
                                            Circuit Judge

                                            8