Court Opinion

ID: 9694949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:01:27.727555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:12.997009
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JARVIS BROWN,                                   No.    21-16446

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00204-DAD-SAB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN; KIMBERLY
BANKS; BELINDA AUTERSON; JASON
HESS; MARY MITCHELL; IAN
CONNORS; GERTA TODD; KEN REID,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 23, 2023**

Before:      O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Federal prisoner Jarvis Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging a Fifth Amendment

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
claim concerning the prison disciplinary process and an Eighth Amendment claim

for failure to protect. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Belanus v.

Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2015). We review a district court’s denial of

leave to amend for abuse of discretion, but the question of futility of amendment is

reviewed de novo. United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 848 F.3d 1161,

1172 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Brown’s action because his claims do

not arise in one of the three contexts the Supreme Court has recognized for Bivens

claims, and thus would require expansion of the Bivens remedy. See Egbert v.

Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1799, 1803-07 (2022) (explaining that recognizing a cause

of action under Bivens is “a disfavored judicial activity” and that the presence of an

alternative remedial process precludes recognizing a Bivens cause of action in a

new context); Mejia v. Miller, 61 F.4th 663, 666 (9th Cir. 2023) (acknowledging

Supreme Court’s reluctance to recognize any new Bivens claims).

      The district court properly denied Brown leave to amend, noting that he had

already twice been granted leave to amend after the deficiencies in his complaints

were identified, and that he had still failed to state a claim. Given those

circumstances, it was appropriate for the district court to determine that the

granting of further leave to amend would be futile.

      AFFIRMED.
                                           2                                     21-16446