Frederick Jackson v. J. Bender et al

Filing 14

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong for Report and Recommendation 13 . Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (hr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FREDERICK JACKSON,

Case No. 2:22-01170 MEMF (ADS)

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15

J. BENDER, et al.,

ORDER ACCEPTING UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.

16
17

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint, (Dkt.

18

No. 1), and the Report and Recommendation of United State Magistrate Judge, (Dkt.

19

No. 13.) No objections were filed, and the time to do so has passed. The Court accepts

20

the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

21

The Report properly found that Plaintiff’s claim of malicious prosecution arises in

22

a “new context” under the two-step framework for determining whether Bivens should

23

be expanded. Hernandez v. Mesa, 589 U.S. 93, 103 (2020). (Court established a two-

24

step analysis in deciding whether a Bivens claims should be extended to a new context:

1

(1) “inquire whether the request involves a claim that arises in a ‘new context’ or

2

involves a ‘new category of defendants;’” and (2) “ask whether there are any ‘special

3

factors that counsel hesitation’ about granting the extension.”). This Court would simply

4

add to the analysis of “new context” in the Report that it appears that this context is new

5

not just because Supreme Court precedent has not expressly permitted a Bivens claim

6

for malicious prosecution, but also because there were new defendants, a new

7

mechanism of injury, and a new claim. See Sheikh v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 106

8

F.4th 918, 924–26 (9th Cir. 2024).

9

The Report also properly found that “special factors” counsel hesitation—in

10

particular, the availability of the administrative grievance procedure within the Federal

11

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).1 With respect to the “special factors” analysis, this Court

12

wishes to emphasize that the question before this Court is not what this Court’s

13

independent assessment would be of the costs and benefits of implying a Bivens cause of

14

action, but “whether there is any rational reason (even one) to think that Congress is

15

better suited to ‘weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed. ”

16

Sheikh, 106 F.4th at 926 (quoting Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, (2022); Ziglar v.

17

Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, (2017)). In fact, the Ninth Circuit has recently reminded lower

18

courts that “If there is even a single ‘reason to pause before applying Bivens in a new

19

context,’ a court may not recognize a Bivens remedy.” Sheikh, 106 F.4th at 926 (quoting

20

Egbert and Hernandez).

21
22
23
24

1 The Court notes a small typographical error in the Report at ECF No. 13, page 9 (“Bureau

or Prisons” intended to be “Bureau of Prisons”).

2

1

This Court is constrained by clear binding authority and the principle of the

2

separation of powers. It is not for this Court to reimagine the Supreme Court’s post-

3

Bivens jurisprudence or rewrite this Circuit’s post-Egbert jurisprudence to permit

4

consideration of the adequacy of the administrative grievance procedure. See Egbert v.

5

Boule, 596 at 492 (2022).

6
7
8
9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

The Report and Recommendation is accepted, (Dkt. No. 13);

2.

Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend;

3.

Judgment is to be entered accordingly.

10
11
12

DATED: March 10, 2025

________________________________
MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

3