Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-CV-648-DPJ-ASH
03-07-2024
ROY CAMPANELLA MOSLEY PLAINTIFF v. WARDEN STEVEN REISER, CAMP ADMINISTRATOR K. LEMOS, AND CASE MANAGER B. WEBBS DEFENDANTS
ORDER
DANIEL P. JORDAN III, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Roy Campanella Mosley, a former Bureau of Prisons inmate, claims Defendants violated his due-process rights when they revoked his home confinement on March 2, 2020. Compl. [1] at 4-5. Defendants, who are BOP employees, moved to dismiss, claiming Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that his claims present a new context under Bivens. Mem. [20] at 1 (citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)). On February 1, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball entered a Report and Recommendation [30], recommending that the Court grant the motion to dismiss based on the Bivens argument.
Judge Ball carefully explained the Supreme Court's “two-part analysis for determining whether a claim should be implied under Bivens.” R&R [30] at 3 (citing Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017)). First, the Court asks “whether the case presents ‘a new Bivens context'-i.e., is it ‘meaningful[ly]' different from the three cases in which the Court has implied a damages action.” Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 492 (2022) (quoting Ziglar, 582 U.S. at 139) (alteration in Egbert). “Second, if a claim arises in a new context, a Bivens remedy is unavailable if there are ‘special factors' indicating that the Judiciary 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). Judge Ball found Moseley's claims involve a new Bivens context, and because special factors counsel against extending Bivens, Moseley has no viable claim. R&R [30] at 4.
Mosley filed an Objection [34], arguing that his case is distinguishable from Ziglar because he is a U.S. citizen and Ziglar was not. Obj. [34] at 1. This argument is not persuasive. Judge Ball properly citied Ziglar as the foundation of the two-part test which is routinely applied by courts when considering a Bivens claim. See Egbert, 596 U.S. 492. Mosley's citizenship impacts neither the applicable test nor its application to his claim.
In short, the Court agrees with Judge Ball's conclusion. Mosley's challenge to his revocation of home confinement presents a new context, and special factors counsel against extending Bivens. See Hernandez v. Causey, No. 2:17-CV-123-TBM-MTP, 2022 WL 4594023, at *12 (S.D.Miss. Sept. 29, 2022) (noting, post-Egbert, “Bivens claims are even more narrow and limited”). Dismissal is appropriate.
The Court finds the Report and Recommendation [30] of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball should be adopted as the opinion of the Court. Defendants' motion to dismiss [19] is granted.
This action is dismissed with prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered.
SO ORDERED.